Birthright Citizenship - Thoughts?

2,155 Views | 72 Replies | Last: 1 hr ago by sycasey
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zippergate • 6:20p, 1/23/25
Zippergate said:
I think it's just a racist or xenophobic consideration to oppose. People don't want new languages, cultures, religions.

Some reasonable arguments in your post but if assuming the motives of others is fair game, let's turn the tables. What could possibly be the motivation for importing millions and millions of unvetted people including terrorists, drug smugglers and human traffickers and not wanting to deport violent criminals? What is your motive for defending such a ridiculous policy? Marxist ideology? virtue signalling? irrationality?

Long post so I'm going to start by answering this to begin. I have not ready further yet.

That bolded part is some F'd up narrative!
Importing???
What the H are you talking about?

Nobody is Importing immigrants!!!
They make their way here by darkness of cover, inside trucks, through tunnels, across the river, and other unknown ways.

There is no grand scheme by Biden or anti republicans to "import" the likes tgat you wrote.

I find it so shocking to read the crap you guys post. It's as if you've been brainwashed.
Reply Quote
1
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zippergate • 6:26p, 1/23/25
Zippergate said:

I would disagree with you that population growth is the be-all-end-all. With increases in productivity from AI, automation, etc, the need for labor is greatly reduced. Why is it that so many in your party talk about the need for UBI? Can you explain how UBI is consistent with importing the lowest of the low in terms of human capital? And why do we need so much labor when we have a sizeable underutilized underclass that is like the immigrants flowing in?


You are asking me to comment of AI and robots?
Then UBi?

I will come back to.

But you are again saying "importing" immigrants. I already rebuked the improper use of language.
Reply Quote
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zippergate • 6:34p, 1/23/25
Zippergate said:


Open borders folks love to point to the great European waves of immigration a century ago as justification for unfettered immigration today. Fine, let's re-create those conditions. No free rent, no EBT, no free health care, no free school lunch or child care, in short, zero financial support. Until we have those conditions again, they cannot claim that the current immigration wave is the same as before.


I have NEVER heard anyone (ANY ONE(!!!)) state they want "open borders"!!!!!
The terminology is wrongfully attributed to anti-trumpers.

The border is not open by policy but is weakly enforced and could be better enforced.
President Obama had a plan on the table to tighten it up but his ask was to grant Dreamers (kids who grew up here and know no other nation) citizenship.
Republicans said NO. And so the problem continues.

It's fair to grant Dreamers citizenship.
They were kids and not responsible for their being here.
Reply Quote
1
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Zippergate • 6:39p, 1/23/25
Zippergate said:
Of course we can and should have immigration. Who is arguing against that? The priority should be adding vetted immigrants who bring something to the table.


In order to be able to have a priority, you must first halt the illegal flood.
That could happen better if Republicans bart eres with Democrats over the Dreamers. That's always been the price of admission.
Reply Quote
bear2034
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:44p, 1/23/25
Reply Quote
3
BearGoggles
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 9:30p, 1/23/25
sycasey said:
BearGoggles said:
And in terms of birthright citizenship, Trump is not proposing to take away birthright citizenship from legal immigrants who are permanent residents. Full stop.
He is proposing to take it away from children of legal immigrants who are on work or school visas, though. This seems untenable to me. People in the country on those visas are clearly "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are they not?
In my opinion, per the Ark opinion, they are here with permission so it seems they meet the current test for birthright citizenship.

Question: Could congress pass a law stating that those students/workers are not w/i the jurisdiction? I don't know the answer, but I think that may be possible.

Second Question: Could the country condition entry in the country by students/guest workers on their: (i) agreeing they are not w/i the jurisdiction; and (ii) waiving the right to birthright citizenship for any offspring? Again, I don't know the answer.

Reply Quote
1
BearGoggles
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 9:39p, 1/23/25
concordtom said:
Zippergate said:
Of course we can and should have immigration. Who is arguing against that? The priority should be adding vetted immigrants who bring something to the table.


In order to be able to have a priority, you must first halt the illegal flood.
That could happen better if Republicans bart eres with Democrats over the Dreamers. That's always been the price of admission.
I reject this premise. Why do republicans need to "give something" to the Democrats for the dems to do what is unquestionably right and hugely popular (i.e., close the border by enforcing existing laws and perhaps add a few new ones). It is almost like the Dems don't want the border closed because either: (i) they perceive it as a leverage point; and/or (ii) they think they're importing future voters.

And I note that prior border deals (e.g., Reagan 1986) didn't work precisely because Dems subsequently refused to enforce the existing law.

For the record, I support allowing the dreamers to stay and have a pathway to citizenship. That should be part of a larger immigration reform package - after the border is secured.
Reply Quote
4
BearGoggles
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 9:42p, 1/23/25
concordtom said:
Zippergate said:


Open borders folks love to point to the great European waves of immigration a century ago as justification for unfettered immigration today. Fine, let's re-create those conditions. No free rent, no EBT, no free health care, no free school lunch or child care, in short, zero financial support. Until we have those conditions again, they cannot claim that the current immigration wave is the same as before.


I have NEVER heard anyone (ANY ONE(!!!)) state they want "open borders"!!!!!
The terminology is wrongfully attributed to anti-trumpers.

The border is not open by policy but is weakly enforced and could be better enforced.
President Obama had a plan on the table to tighten it up but his ask was to grant Dreamers (kids who grew up here and know no other nation) citizenship.
Republicans said NO. And so the problem continues.

It's fair to grant Dreamers citizenship.
They were kids and not responsible for their being here.
Choosing to not enforce the law is in fact a policy. When Biden took office, pretty much the first thing he did was revoke the Trump rules that had closed the border (stay in Mexico, etc.). It was not an accident.
Reply Quote
5
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGoggles • 1:56a, 1/24/25
BearGoggles said:
concordtom said:
Zippergate said:
Of course we can and should have immigration. Who is arguing against that? The priority should be adding vetted immigrants who bring something to the table.


In order to be able to have a priority, you must first halt the illegal flood.
That could happen better if Republicans bart eres with Democrats over the Dreamers. That's always been the price of admission.
I reject this premise. Why do republicans need to "give something" to the Democrats for the dems to do what is unquestionably right and hugely popular (i.e., close the border by enforcing existing laws and perhaps add a few new ones). It is almost like the Dems don't want the border closed because either: (i) they perceive it as a leverage point; and/or (ii) they think they're importing future voters.

And I note that prior border deals (e.g., Reagan 1986) didn't work precisely because Dems subsequently refused to enforce the existing law.

For the record, I support allowing the dreamers to stay and have a pathway to citizenship. That should be part of a larger immigration reform package - after the border is secured.


Well, you're right.
USA can just become a nation of ass holes towards a class of people they are racist towards.

That's great that you believe Dreams should be citizens. I hope you let your congressman know, and vote that way in the future.

For me, I think it's horrendous that we choose to make Latinos a underclass.


1) Get a goddam deal done!!! Democrats would have no more leverage on this issue.

2) stop lying to constituents. The GOP rhetoric doesn't work for me.

3) even if the two sides were to come together on the border, it's a very difficult task to seal off either border (north/south).

I support Dems refusal to move forward until Republicans also move forward. Because I don't want us to be a nation of ass holes.

It's kind of like the issue of slavery. You gotta make a stand sometimes.

Y, si, yo hablo espanol!
Reply Quote
2
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:02a, 1/24/25
I think if we are going to create our own negotiated solution we need some facts.
I certainly am no expert.
And PS: let's stop separating families. That's abysmal, cruel, and was intended. More ass hole policy.



I don't know how they measure crossings. By arrests? By no arrests? How would they know if people sneak?
The woman who cares for my grandmother crossed 7 times. She's wonderful. She tells me what it's like.
Reply Quote
1 edit
wc22
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 7:23a, 1/24/25
"2) stop lying to constituents. The GOP rhetoric doesn't work for me."

The Dem lies on this issues are much more blatant and ugly. It is immoral, wretchedly immoral, to delete entire ethnic groups from memory to craft false messages for the populace. It is immoral to pretend things like the Indian Wars did not occur. This is exactly what Dems do. I can't overstate how ugly and immoral it is to rhetorically get rid of indigenous groups whenever it helps messaging. I find it astounding that anyone is OK with this.
Reply Quote
4
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BearGoggles • 8:01a, 1/24/25
BearGoggles said:
concordtom said:
Zippergate said:
Of course we can and should have immigration. Who is arguing against that? The priority should be adding vetted immigrants who bring something to the table.


In order to be able to have a priority, you must first halt the illegal flood.
That could happen better if Republicans bart eres with Democrats over the Dreamers. That's always been the price of admission.
I reject this premise. Why do republicans need to "give something" to the Democrats for the dems to do what is unquestionably right and hugely popular (i.e., close the border by enforcing existing laws and perhaps add a few new ones). It is almost like the Dems don't want the border closed because either: (i) they perceive it as a leverage point; and/or (ii) they think they're importing future voters.

And I note that prior border deals (e.g., Reagan 1986) didn't work precisely because Dems subsequently refused to enforce the existing law.

For the record, I support allowing the dreamers to stay and have a pathway to citizenship. That should be part of a larger immigration reform package - after the border is secured.
Allowing Dreamers and people like them to stay and have a path to citizenship is ALSO hugely popular. Seems to me that both sides should have agreed on this deal years ago.
Reply Quote
2
GoOskie
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to going4roses • 8:26a, 1/24/25
going4roses said:
I wonder what ways role Race plays in this situation/dynamic

We just witnessed one of the most racist Presidential campaigns in recent memory. I'm sure there's a little racism involved.

Reply Quote
2
smh
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 8:39a, 1/24/25
Quote:
> Y, si, yo hablo espanol!
que?

> https://www.spanish.academy/blog/get-it-straight-what-does-que-mean-in-spanish
Reply Quote
bearister
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wc22 • 9:10a, 1/24/25
"It is immoral to pretend things like the Indian Wars did not occur."


A Compelling, disgusting and sad read.

*American Primeval may be the only Western I've seen that depicts bow and arrow attacks as described in the book. Shock and awe.

American Primeval (TV Mini Series 2025) - IMDb


https://www.imdb.com/title/tt24069848/
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
Zippergate
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 9:23a, 1/24/25
concordtom said:
Zippergate said:


Open borders folks love to point to the great European waves of immigration a century ago as justification for unfettered immigration today. Fine, let's re-create those conditions. No free rent, no EBT, no free health care, no free school lunch or child care, in short, zero financial support. Until we have those conditions again, they cannot claim that the current immigration wave is the same as before.


I have NEVER heard anyone (ANY ONE(!!!)) state they want "open borders"!!!!!
The terminology is wrongfully attributed to anti-trumpers.

The border is not open by policy but is weakly enforced and could be better enforced.
President Obama had a plan on the table to tighten it up but his ask was to grant Dreamers (kids who grew up here and know no other nation) citizenship.
Republicans said NO. And so the problem continues.

It's fair to grant Dreamers citizenship.
They were kids and not responsible for their being here.
Your post is disingenuous. Of course your party is for open borders. This is just a fact. The left wing of the party doesn't hide it, the face of the party pretends that that is not what they advocate for. But look at the actual policies they put in place.

- Catch and release
- CBP One app
- Humanitarian Parole where the Biden administration was literally flying in migrants from their home countries

And what was the result? A massive increase in people coming across the border. Effectively, anyone who came was allowed in. ANYONE. If that isn't "open borders," wth is it????

Step one has ALWAYS been closing down the border. Trump was building the wall. Biden halted that work and sold off the materials for scrap. Why?

Obviously, people who have spent their whole lives here need a path to citizenship. But Beargoggs has it right. You fix the border first. You criminalize illegal entry. You criminalize the hiring of those here illegally. THEN, you offer citizenship to the dreamers with the clear understanding this is a one time offer never to be repeated. Otherwise, you get a repeat of the Reagan amnesty. Everyone knows that if you are able to come into the country, you will eventually be given amnesty. The only reason pols in both parties but especially yours oppose this is because Dems want votes and pols of all stripes cater to the interests of large corporate interests. I've said it many times here: how is the open border policy in the interests of America's underclass who have to compete with illegals for jobs, housing, benefits, etc?

We need to reorder the priorities over who gets in. Priority should be given to people with means and skills. And if you are above a certain age, it should be difficult to get in unless you have the means to support yourself including healthcare. Medicare is a ticking time bomb. Why are we taking on the burden of elderly healthcare, by far the largest portion of the cost, when we don't have any obligation to these people whatsoever? Why are people like you so generous giving away the futures of our kids?
Reply Quote
5
MinotStateBeav
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 9:51a, 1/24/25
sycasey said:
BearGoggles said:
concordtom said:
Zippergate said:
Of course we can and should have immigration. Who is arguing against that? The priority should be adding vetted immigrants who bring something to the table.


In order to be able to have a priority, you must first halt the illegal flood.
That could happen better if Republicans bart eres with Democrats over the Dreamers. That's always been the price of admission.
I reject this premise. Why do republicans need to "give something" to the Democrats for the dems to do what is unquestionably right and hugely popular (i.e., close the border by enforcing existing laws and perhaps add a few new ones). It is almost like the Dems don't want the border closed because either: (i) they perceive it as a leverage point; and/or (ii) they think they're importing future voters.

And I note that prior border deals (e.g., Reagan 1986) didn't work precisely because Dems subsequently refused to enforce the existing law.

For the record, I support allowing the dreamers to stay and have a pathway to citizenship. That should be part of a larger immigration reform package - after the border is secured.
Allowing Dreamers and people like them to stay and have a path to citizenship is ALSO hugely popular. Seems to me that both sides should have agreed on this deal years ago.
Let's worry about american citizen dreamers first.
Reply Quote
1
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wc22 • 10:48a, 1/24/25
wc22 said:
"2) stop lying to constituents. The GOP rhetoric doesn't work for me."

The Dem lies on this issues are much more blatant and ugly. It is immoral, wretchedly immoral, to delete entire ethnic groups from memory to craft false messages for the populace. It is immoral to pretend things like the Indian Wars did not occur. This is exactly what Dems do. I can't overstate how ugly and immoral it is to rhetorically get rid of indigenous groups whenever it helps messaging. I find it astounding that anyone is OK with this.
Since we have a few people that like to gleefully point out that the Republicans freed the slaves while the Democrats were pro-slavery, I'll lob some dynamite into the pond and point out that the Republicans were in charge and orchestrating the genocide of the Native Americans for the vast majority of the Indian Wars in the western US. 39 out of 50 years from 1860-1910.
Reply Quote
3
1 edit
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MinotStateBeav • 12:15p, 1/24/25
MinotStateBeav said:
sycasey said:
BearGoggles said:
concordtom said:
Zippergate said:
Of course we can and should have immigration. Who is arguing against that? The priority should be adding vetted immigrants who bring something to the table.


In order to be able to have a priority, you must first halt the illegal flood.
That could happen better if Republicans bart eres with Democrats over the Dreamers. That's always been the price of admission.
I reject this premise. Why do republicans need to "give something" to the Democrats for the dems to do what is unquestionably right and hugely popular (i.e., close the border by enforcing existing laws and perhaps add a few new ones). It is almost like the Dems don't want the border closed because either: (i) they perceive it as a leverage point; and/or (ii) they think they're importing future voters.

And I note that prior border deals (e.g., Reagan 1986) didn't work precisely because Dems subsequently refused to enforce the existing law.

For the record, I support allowing the dreamers to stay and have a pathway to citizenship. That should be part of a larger immigration reform package - after the border is secured.
Allowing Dreamers and people like them to stay and have a path to citizenship is ALSO hugely popular. Seems to me that both sides should have agreed on this deal years ago.
Let's worry about american citizen dreamers first.

What? We're talking about immigration here.
Reply Quote
2
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wc22 • 5:35p, 1/24/25
wc22 said:
"2) stop lying to constituents. The GOP rhetoric doesn't work for me."

The Dem lies on this issues are much more blatant and ugly. It is immoral, wretchedly immoral, to delete entire ethnic groups from memory to craft false messages for the populace. It is immoral to pretend things like the Indian Wars did not occur. This is exactly what Dems do. I can't overstate how ugly and immoral it is to rhetorically get rid of indigenous groups whenever it helps messaging. I find it astounding that anyone is OK with this.


Holy deflection Batman!
Now we are talking Indian Wars????
Reply Quote
2
wc22
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 8:17p, 1/24/25
Yes, the Indian Wars directly relate to the wording of the 14th Amendment. How is that a deflection? It is immoral to treat indigenous groups like trash when they are rhetorically inconvienent.
Reply Quote
2
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wc22 • 11:22a, 1/25/25
wc22 said:
Yes, the Indian Wars directly relate to the wording of the 14th Amendment. How is that a deflection? It is immoral to treat indigenous groups like trash when they are rhetorically inconvienent.


I thought we were talking about trump saying he wants to remove birthright citizenship.
Now you are suggesting someone has treated indigenous groups as Trash????

Double holy deflection, Batman!!

Methinks you are simply out to make muddy trouble.


I didn't know what you were referring to, so I let ChatGPT take a stab at it, as follows:


Indian Wars directly relate to the wording of the 14th Amendment.
Explain.

The Indian Wars and the 14th Amendment intersect in the context of citizenship and the rights of Indigenous peoples. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, provides that "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." This was a significant legal framework in the aftermath of the Civil War, aimed at establishing equality and granting citizenship to former slaves.

However, the application of this amendment to Native Americans was complex. During the Indian Wars (roughly the mid-18th to late 19th century), the U.S. government fought to subdue Indigenous tribes, often through violent campaigns. The Indian Wars directly influenced the framing of the 14th Amendment and its application to Native Americans because many tribes were still viewed as sovereign nations, distinct from U.S. citizens, despite the U.S. government's overarching control.

Initially, many Native Americans were not granted citizenship under the 14th Amendment because they were considered to be "foreign" and living on their own lands, which were seen as separate from U.S. states. In fact, some of the legal interpretations suggested that Native Americans' "subject to the jurisdiction" could exclude them from citizenship. This stance was officially altered with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which granted full U.S. citizenship to all Native Americans born in the United States, thereby expanding the 14th Amendment's citizenship provisions.

Thus, the Indian Wars indirectly relate to the 14th Amendment by shaping the legal environment in which Native American citizenship was debated and developed over time, including the process through which Indigenous people were gradually integrated into the American political and legal system, albeit often against their will.

For more detailed insights, the relationship between the Indian Wars and the 14th Amendment is explored in works on U.S. legal history and Native American studies.


The current debate has to do with the southern border. Stop it.
Reply Quote
1
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:45p, 1/25/25
Native Americans needed a special law passed to grant them birthright citizenship because the reservations were considered their own sovereign territory in certain ways, and thus not fully "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. That issue would not apply to anyone born on normal US state land.

wc22 appears to have made several large logical leaps from this without telling anyone about how he got there, resulting in the current confusion.
Reply Quote
2
2 edits
wc22
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:33p, 1/25/25
Completely factually wrong, both of you. Really incredible how some people's brains "work".
Reply Quote
3
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wc22 • 2:58p, 1/25/25
wc22 said:
Completely factually wrong, both of you. Really incredible how some people's brains "work".

You have every opportunity to explain yourself here, bud.
Reply Quote
3
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wc22 • 4:12p, 1/25/25
wc22 said:
Really incredible how some people's brains "work".


No doubt!

I can see several of these people here.
Can you?







Sometimes they congregate more obviously.






And sometimes they look like normal every day people. But inside, something's gone wrong, so very wrong.




My aunt once said, "a good liberal arts education teaches one How To Think."
Yes, I'd say, it's important to study history, psychology, and much more, so we can spot things, rather than get swept up in them, and then have the courage to make brave decisions when we are called upon to do so.

Some pass the test, albeit belatedly! (Excessively tardy, actually.)




Some do not.





And because of that, we do NOT learn from the past and have to suffer all over again.
Just wait and you will see.
It's human nature.
It's the human experience, and the history of the world.

Reply Quote
1
9 edits
wc22
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 6:04p, 1/25/25
sycasey said:
wc22 said:
Completely factually wrong, both of you. Really incredible how some people's brains "work".

You have every opportunity to explain yourself here, bud.
American Indians not getting citizenship had nothing to do with reservations -- born on or outside of reservations their citizenship was uncertain and it could be determined by military commanders on a whim. An Act of Congress, which can't override the US Constitution, did grant them citizenship. This actually supports Trump's position, not yours: the US Government decides who is under its jurisdiction. You created a false circumstance, either intentionally or unintentionally, to try to hide this blatant contradiction in your logic.

American Samoans currently not getting birth citizenship does have to do with geography. But here, again, an act of Congress defined the terms. The US Government defined who was under its jurisdiction in relation to the 14th Ammendment.

The ahistorical rhetoric Dems use in this debate is offensive and frankly immoral. At this point it is clear that you are a bad actor, you don't care about what happened in the past to indgenous groups or what is currently happening, and only want to support a narrative you know is false. Have a nice day.
Reply Quote
3
sycasey
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wc22 • 6:38p, 1/25/25
wc22 said:
sycasey said:
wc22 said:
Completely factually wrong, both of you. Really incredible how some people's brains "work".

You have every opportunity to explain yourself here, bud.
American Indians not getting citizenship had nothing to do with reservations -- born on or outside of reservations their citizenship was uncertain and it could be determined by military commanders on a whim. An Act of Congress, which can't override the US Constitution, did grant them citizenship. This actually supports Trump's position, not yours: the US Government decides who is under its jurisdiction. You created a false circumstance, either intentionally or unintentionally, to try to hide this blatant contradiction in your logic.

American Samoans currently not getting birth citizenship does have to do with geography. But here, again, an act of Congress defined the terms. The US Government defined who was under its jurisdiction in relation to the 14th Ammendment.

The ahistorical rhetoric Dems use in this debate is offensive and frankly immoral. At this point it is clear that you are a bad actor, you don't care about what happened in the past to indgenous groups or what is currently happening, and only want to support a narrative you know is false. Have a nice day.
Well again, American Indians were under a questionable legal status (reservations or not) as part of their own "sovereign nations" and also within the United States. Hence needing Congress to resolve it. I'm not sure of the history of American Samoa, but I suspect it's similar.

Again, to me that seems quite different from people born in US states now who are not members of indigenous tribes (and it also seems to me that this has been litigated quite extensively over the years and that birthright citizenship has been continually affirmed), but okay. Thanks for the accusations.
Reply Quote
1 edit
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wc22 • 9:44a, 1/26/25
Once more, repeated, at issue is neither Samoans. It is Latinos. Born here. Raised in US schools. Lived here as adults, working as second class citizens.

Let's get to the point.
What do you propose to do with the child of a woman who crossed the border illegally, gave birth here, and the family has lived in shadows ever since? For 20 years.

Please don't try looping in other situations. I want you to answer the question for said 20 year old, who has no papers, but has lived his/her entire life in the USA.
Reply Quote
2
wc22
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 10:52a, 1/26/25
concordtom said:
Once more, repeated, at issue is neither Samoans. It is Latinos. Born here. Raised in US schools. Lived here as adults, working as second class citizens.

Let's get to the point.
What do you propose to do with the child of a woman who crossed the border illegally, gave birth here, and the family has lived in shadows ever since? For 20 years.

Please don't try looping in other situations. I want you to answer the question for said 20 year old, who has no papers, but has lived his/her entire life in the USA.
No, this is about birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment. See the topic title.

I, like most Americans, would like to see the 20 year old given a path to citizenship.

However, the debate needs to be open and honest. And frankly, the Democrats are neither on this issue. Constant lies, many very ugly.
Reply Quote
4
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wc22 • 11:57a, 1/26/25
wc22 said:
concordtom said:
Once more, repeated, at issue is neither Samoans. It is Latinos. Born here. Raised in US schools. Lived here as adults, working as second class citizens.

Let's get to the point.
What do you propose to do with the child of a woman who crossed the border illegally, gave birth here, and the family has lived in shadows ever since? For 20 years.

Please don't try looping in other situations. I want you to answer the question for said 20 year old, who has no papers, but has lived his/her entire life in the USA.
No, this is about birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment. See the topic title.

I, like most Americans, would like to see the 20 year old given a path to citizenship.

However, the debate needs to be open and honest. And frankly, the Democrats are neither on this issue. Constant lies, many very ugly.


Hogwash!

I have presented a scenario for you that is directly being challenged by Trump.
You are talking about all other things.

The 20 year old i mentioned IS a citizen! Because s/he was born here.
You said you'd like to see a "path". How very generous of you.

For the baby who arrived here at age 1 and is now 20, you'd like a "path".
Tell us, what would that "path" look like for you? You want them to wait ten more years? You want them to pay a fee? What did you want?

What did you do to get your citizenship?



Reply Quote
2
Eastern Oregon Bear
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to concordtom • 3:54p, 1/26/25
concordtom said:
wc22 said:
concordtom said:
Once more, repeated, at issue is neither Samoans. It is Latinos. Born here. Raised in US schools. Lived here as adults, working as second class citizens.

Let's get to the point.
What do you propose to do with the child of a woman who crossed the border illegally, gave birth here, and the family has lived in shadows ever since? For 20 years.

Please don't try looping in other situations. I want you to answer the question for said 20 year old, who has no papers, but has lived his/her entire life in the USA.
No, this is about birthright citizenship and the 14th Amendment. See the topic title.

I, like most Americans, would like to see the 20 year old given a path to citizenship.

However, the debate needs to be open and honest. And frankly, the Democrats are neither on this issue. Constant lies, many very ugly.


Hogwash!

I have presented a scenario for you that is directly being challenged by Trump.
You are talking about all other things.

The 20 year old i mentioned IS a citizen! Because s/he was born here.
You said you'd like to see a "path". How very generous of you.

For the baby who arrived here at age 1 and is now 20, you'd like a "path".
Tell us, what would that "path" look like for you? You want them to wait ten more years? You want them to pay a fee? What did you want?

What did you do to get your citizenship?
He started mouth breathing into his dog whistle.
Reply Quote
3
wc22
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Eastern Oregon Bear • 5:10p, 1/26/25
The moral superiority of liars. Please.
Reply Quote
4
concordtom
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to wc22 • 7:30p, 1/26/25
wc22 said:
The moral superiority of liars. Please.


That's big of you to state that your position is morally inferior.
Reply Quote
BearGoggles
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to sycasey • 11:06p, 1/26/25
sycasey said:
wc22 said:
sycasey said:
wc22 said:
Completely factually wrong, both of you. Really incredible how some people's brains "work".

You have every opportunity to explain yourself here, bud.
American Indians not getting citizenship had nothing to do with reservations -- born on or outside of reservations their citizenship was uncertain and it could be determined by military commanders on a whim. An Act of Congress, which can't override the US Constitution, did grant them citizenship. This actually supports Trump's position, not yours: the US Government decides who is under its jurisdiction. You created a false circumstance, either intentionally or unintentionally, to try to hide this blatant contradiction in your logic.

American Samoans currently not getting birth citizenship does have to do with geography. But here, again, an act of Congress defined the terms. The US Government defined who was under its jurisdiction in relation to the 14th Ammendment.

The ahistorical rhetoric Dems use in this debate is offensive and frankly immoral. At this point it is clear that you are a bad actor, you don't care about what happened in the past to indgenous groups or what is currently happening, and only want to support a narrative you know is false. Have a nice day.
Well again, American Indians were under a questionable legal status (reservations or not) as part of their own "sovereign nations" and also within the United States. Hence needing Congress to resolve it. I'm not sure of the history of American Samoa, but I suspect it's similar.

Again, to me that seems quite different from people born in US states now who are not members of indigenous tribes (and it also seems to me that this has been litigated quite extensively over the years and that birthright citizenship has been continually affirmed), but okay. Thanks for the accusations.
There was not much questionable about it. At the time of enactment, no one thought the 14th amendment granted citizenship or birthright citizenship to Native Americans. They were considered a separate sovereign - the US Constitution (Article I) refers to Indian tribes as sovereign. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty_in_the_United_States

This was confirmed both in practice and by the Supreme Court in subsequent cases prior to the Civil War. For example, Worcester v. Georgia (1832).

Post civil war, the supreme court reaffirmed this in Elk vs. Wilkins (1884). That was eventually changed when Congress enacted the Indian Citizenship Act in 1924 . There's a notable quote from the Elk case.

"But an emigrant from any foreign state cannot become a citizen of the United States without a formal renunciation of his old allegiance, and an acceptance by the United States of that renunciation through such form of naturalization as may be required law."

How might that apply to an illegal immigrant who crosses the border illegally and/or overstays their visa?

Reply Quote
2
2 edits
Page 2 of 3 ▼
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.