birth tourism and anchor babies
- Thread starter Rdcldad
- Start date
great reply. I wish more of our conversations on this board were so fact based.
(I will note that I used a common publishing and am not a historian.)
So you are with me on the 2nd Amendment that ANY American can possess ANY weapon they want?
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is crystal clear.
I didn't say that. Just pointing out that some who think like that are fired up to make changes to the 14th.
and vice versa for those scoring at home
So you can limit arms or you can't? It's a complete free-for-all as written in the Constitution or you are being hypocritical
I don't think Trump wants to change the amendment. He would attempt to make a rule, based on his interpretation of wording in the amendment.
Not commenting on this topic as to not derail this thread. The topic you are referencing has been discussed in other threads in the past. You can look up my posts in those threads if you are so inclined.
Fair point. Although I have not stated that I am opposed to reevaluation of 14. I have simply pointed out that some individuals claim that the Constitution is non-negotiable in the past, but are now claiming that changes to it are needed. I have mixed feelings on both 2 and 14.
Again, the past is full of EOs limiting the Second. You don't seem troubled by it at all.
If the POTUS can issue an EO on the 2nd,hr can do so on any of them.
Addressing his point isn't going to derail this thread. There are quite a few laws in place that restrict the right to keep and bare arms. I can't go buy an M243. My 18 year old daughter can't buy a handgun. I can't take my .45 onto a plane.
Why isn't Trump's proposed EO viewed as a simple restriction on the 14th? He isn't proposing that no children born to immigrants will be US citizens. His proposal only addresses those born to illegal aliens.
i make no effort to win a personal argument
only point to the hypocracy
the moral compass spins like a top
Any person born in the United States is a United States citizen, period. Even if their mom or dad are illegal
The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed, period. Even if the person is a felon.
Thanks. It's an important discussion to be had, at the very least because of the slopes one might slide down or threads one might pull once you start monkeying with decades of Constitutional interpretation and application.
As usual, there is an excellent and beyond exhaustive thread on this over at r/askhistorians
The fact you had to edit this, to include a subgroup that includes the lowest denominator of human decency.....is very telling sir.
Pathetic
If we're going to talk in absolutes, we're going to talk in absolutes, period. lol
All felons are the lowest denominator of human decency? Interesting take you have there. Maybe we should explore that in a different thread.
You said it dipshit. I didn't qualify which felons in my post and neither did you. Maybe your brain should do a better job of thinking before your grubby dick beaters pound mindlessly on the keyboard.
I enjoyed your post as well.
This is a link to the transcipt of the Senate debate about the Howard language from 1866. You've probably seen it, but for anyone that hasn't, it's a great historical read. And it's also amusing to see that sarcasm and political sniping is definitely not a new phenomenon.
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/citizenship/pdf/congressglobe_2890.pdf
People who have taken a deep dive into the historical record--from both the left (Kantrowitz and Epps) and right (Ho)--make what looks to me like an airtight argument that the "jurisdiction" language is meant to settle the question about Native Americans.
Immigration and citizenship were major issues in the 1850s (Know Nothing movement) and obviously 1860s (the very development of the Republican Party through early Reconstruction). If the 1866 CRA or 14th authors would have intended birthright to be limited to only children of emancipated slaves or people of African descent, they would have said so. Many in Congress wanted exactly that, but they lost the debate. Tying our 20th/21st century idea of "legal immigration" to the context-specific 1866 use of "jurisdiction" is anachronistic.
Sure, most state and federal agencies sought to deny birthright citizenship to Asians. SCOTUS finally ruled against them 1898.
This debate is a political, cultural, and at this particular moment an electoral exercise, not a legal one. Unless of course opponents of birthright citizenship want to amend the Constitution, then that's another argument.
