purealpha Wrote: -------------------- I’m no geography expert but AlphaSeeker my friend, Stockton is not in the southwest. Anyhow… -------------------- Good point. I shoudl have said Southwest and most part of Calif. But you get my point. BTW, you are purealpha. What’s your alpha YTD? I am at roughly 23% YTD.
I support amending the 14th Amendment. The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that slaves born in the United States before the Civil War would not be disenfranchised by the states claiming they were not citizens. The 14th Amendment probably should have originally had a date of termination originally written into it. There are few other nations in the world where persons born in a country’s borders are automatically considered citizens.
good to see that republicans are up for changing the constitution when it doesn’t mesh with their policy objectives.
The Constitution was designed to be changed. The 14th Amendment is a child of the 1860s, not the 1780s.
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The Constitution was designed to be changed. The > 14th Amendment is a child of the 1860s, not the > 1780s. Yes, lets change the 2nd amendment while we are at it. It was a antiquated child of 18th century, when there was no effective police force or army.
^^ Marcus, you work hard and pay taxes. How do you feel if you learned that a good part of your tax contribution went to illiegal immigrants and their children in form of additional police budget, additional park maintenance, over crowded public school, etc.? Illegal immigrants are just like that… Illegal.
marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kkent Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > The Constitution was designed to be changed. > The > > 14th Amendment is a child of the 1860s, not the > > 1780s. > > > Yes, lets change the 2nd amendment while we are at > it. It was a antiquated child of 18th century, > when there was no effective police force or army. I don’t think it’s ever been suggested by anyone that any of the first 10 amendments, called the Bill of Rights, should be overturned. But amendments (16 of them) have been added and one abolished since the Bill of Rights–see the 18th amendment. Article 1 of the 14th Amendment had a particular purpose in 1868–today, it no longer serves a purpose other than facilitating illegal immigration. In fact, I can’t think of a single nation in the world that grants automatic citizenship by birthright (I believe it’s almost always granted by birthright to children of citizens).
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > marcus phoenix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > kkent Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > The Constitution was designed to be changed. > > The > > > 14th Amendment is a child of the 1860s, not > the > > > 1780s. > > > > > > Yes, lets change the 2nd amendment while we are > at > > it. It was a antiquated child of 18th century, > > when there was no effective police force or > army. > > > I don’t think it’s ever been suggested by anyone > that any of the first 10 amendments, called the > Bill of Rights, should be overturned. But > amendments (16 of them) have been added and one > abolished since the Bill of Rights–see the 18th > amendment. Article 1 of the 14th Amendment had a > particular purpose in 1868–today, it no longer > serves a purpose other than facilitating illegal > immigration. In fact, I can’t think of a single > nation in the world that grants automatic > citizenship by birthright (I believe it’s almost > always granted by birthright to children of > citizens). What about children of legal permanent residents and legal visa holders? Should they not be considered Americans?
I’m just here to say I loved both the pictures that had links to them. That made my day. I think all arguments should be fought using pictures of people from the other side, much more entertaining. Anyhow, people saying no border restrictions aren’t taking into account things like our already burgeoning infrastructure, the major drug violence issues that could flow over the borders as well, and the fact that our high per capita gdp is partly allowable due to our border restrictions.
I would conform our laws with whatever the norm is. As-is, we are not in the norm when it comes to citizenship laws because our citizenship laws are dictated by an innacurate interpretation of a Civil War-era amendment. The author of the citizenship clause, on the floor of congress, asserted that the clause was not meant to be construed for persons born of foreigners, aliens, or ambassadors.
marcus phoenix Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > What about children of legal permanent residents > and legal visa holders? Should they not be > considered Americans? I don’t actually agree with eliminating the 14th amendment, but interestingly the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard, specifically noted in the Senatorial debates that it excluded “persons born in the United States who are foreigners.”
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > In fact, I can’t think of a single > nation in the world that grants automatic > citizenship by birthright (I believe it’s almost > always granted by birthright to children of > citizens). kent, you are music to my ears. Can we apply this “what other nations do” line of reasoning to other hot topics like universal healthcare and gun control? I swear we are brothers from another mother.
Well, citizenship, naturalization and immigration are inherently international issues whereas health care and gun control are not.
naturallight Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > kkent Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > In fact, I can’t think of a single > > nation in the world that grants automatic > > citizenship by birthright (I believe it’s > almost > > always granted by birthright to children of > > citizens). > > > kent, you are music to my ears. Can we apply this > “what other nations do” line of reasoning to other > hot topics like universal healthcare and gun > control? I swear we are brothers from another > mother. I’ll go for that. I get to choose the country for each issue though.
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well, citizenship, naturalization and immigration > are inherently international issues whereas health > care and gun control are not. huh?
Umm, immigration and naturalization requires at least TWO nations whereas gun control and health care laws necessarily involve ONE nation. So, did you process that?
kkent Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Umm, immigration and naturalization requires at > least TWO nations whereas gun control and health > care laws necessarily involve ONE nation. So, did > you process that? This is a meaningless bit of rhetoric. simply because someone is coming from another country doesn’t involve that country in our policy. What role does any other country play in our INS policy? What role does any other country play in the 14th amendment? Are there any others arenas wherein you think “Well other countries do it this way” is a legitimate policy argument? Perhaps that fact that we grant automatic citizenship makes us a better country?