I doubt the SC will do away with birthright citizenship in these cases. You still deport the illegal parents and the kid can come back if they want when older or live with a legal relative in the US. We must secure our border but I do think the big focus should be on removing illegal alien felons first and others that may be bigger security risks. Priority should be felons and then illegal aliens from places like China and the Middle East etc.
the 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship
- Thread starter BillytheC
- Start date
Liberals vote against their own best interests all the time.
The 14th amendment was created because congress feared the Civil Rights Act of 1866 would not be sufficient. In the debates on the amendment the authors confirmed it was to codify this act.
Below is section 1.
An Act
To protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.
Below is section 1.
An Act
To protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.
I have no idea how the Supreme Court will rule but I do think it's pretty clear that Trump should lose this one.
For the record, the US should amend this amendment to say citizens only.
For the record, the US should amend this amendment to say citizens only.
Our laws should be written clearly so everyone can understand. It's silly to have to debate on what they meant when they used a certain word 150+ years ago.
OInly libs debate this...because facts are NEVER, EVER on their side. Libs cannot even spell FACTS. For you...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED CANNOT be clearer. See what I mean? It is IMPOSSIBLE to not understand what that means...you just do not like what it means! Those are just the facts...ma'am
So you think mentally ill career criminals should have as many guns as they want?
Why not? They’re already in Congress
Sorry, I do not have a dictionary from that time period. You can't use current definitions and apply them to old documents. But I have listened to Constitutional Scholars who have studied the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and other material from that time and they explain it quite well.
The Colonist before they took the overt act of Declaring their Independence and fighting a war, were under the jurisdiction of the King of England.
Illegal immigrants do not become under the jurisdiction of the USA just by stepping foot on USA soil. If they did, then why do we have immigration laws? Why do we deport people? The only immigrants who are actually able to do this were Cubans fleeing Castor. All they had to do was step foot on USA soil and they were allowed to stay. WHY, because Congress acted and passed The Cuban Adjustment Act of 1966.
And because some cities, states and even businesses and people were still treating former slaves as if they were not citizens.
You are probably correct. The SCOTUS will more likely then not just take the easy way out just like they did when it came to looking into the possible fraud of the 2020 election. BUT, I agree, this might lead to amending the amendment to make it clear moving forward.
Already in the Gov to. The IRS supposedly has over 4,500 guns and has stockpiled around 5 million rounds of ammunition.
Hard to have any guns when you are institutionalized. Here is a solution for you if you care. Its easier than trying gun control and focuses on the real problem. The left for some reason abandoned common sense decades ago when it came to mental health. Why did a white collar criminal like Madoff get a life sentence for stealing from uber wealthy marks and armed robber George Floyd, who put his gun on a pregnant woman's belly, was out and engaged in illegal activity?
The solution isn't gun control. Its not to jail Madoff but to make him pay people back, Its to put Floyd in jail for decades. Its to put the mentally ill in asylums.
It does not. It also doesn't mention anything about unlimited weapons. It only says you can bear arms. You can bear arms with one derringer.
How are you smart enough to turn your computer on in the morning.
Let me explain to you how legal things work. If it's not specifically proscribed, it's allowed.
Realistically the gubmint will never be audited...oh wait DOGE...oh wait people were institutionalized not that long ago....if they are crazy and a danger with a gun or anything else (not all people) they should be off the street ..oh wait if we cleared out the prisons of non-violent criminals there would be more room to house the violent ones...life is short and jail should require a high bar not these lengthy sentences for run of the mill thieves. Madoff's cell could have housed Floyd and for quite some time.
You know I just realized you often deal in absolutes. All people! No wonder you can't see realistic solutions.
You never know what the courts will do because of their politics and how they let public pressure affect some decisions. Red flag laws are an overreach joke in many states and the SC even let the public pressure affect their decision when they let it stand a person could lose their gun rights for a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction.
Theo...there are laws already in plce that protect us from this. I know you do not know any gun laws...but study up before making stupid posts like this. The problem is the lack of ENFORCING those laws
So your offended by someone convicted of domestic violence losing their gun rights?
That's like lefties being offended that felons lose their voting rights.
But what about shall not be infringed? Are you suggesting that some infringement is acceptable?
You lose rights when you commit a felony...that is our law. So YES..if you break our laws to lose certain rights...I am good. I DO believe people should have the opportunity to gain those rights back, though.
No one is suggesting repealing the 14th, gun grabber
No, because visitors obtained a visa or some other formal permission to be in the US temporarily.
Someone who came in illegally should (and now is) being removed for breaking the law. The courts will not give these non-citizens the same due process and rights of a citizen because they aren't owed that.
"Has a citizen of another country who violated the laws of this country to gain entry and unlawfully remain here pledged obedience to the laws in exchange for the protection and benefit of those laws?
They gave no obedience or allegiance to the country when they entered — one cannot give allegiance and promise to be bound by the laws through an act of defiance of those laws."
That would still accomplish the goal.
What Trump is trying to stop is the lure of illegals coming over just before birth and creating anchor babies that make them harder to remove as a family. If the parents knew they're getting deported anyway they'd probably not want to endure the permanent separation from their kids.
But if you can get a favorable interpretation of the 14th then it's an even stronger disincentive.
Yes it's a misdemeanor and many pled to it with a very light sentence not knowing the courts would pull this later and take their rights on a misdemeanor. Also many cases are a joke with hardly anything happening but pushing someone that was screaming like a crazed person in their face.. I do admit the bigger issue is major abuse that never goes to trial because victims won't cooperate though but they don't lose their gun rights even if they really beat the person. The SC decision was total PC BS nonsense.
