Thread: No to birthright citizenship?

tuntum

Actually, what he's getting at, is trolling. He was here a few days ago as tantum trying to get his little digs in.

He's talking about something I said when I pointed out that Aztlan is a myth.

http://www.thesocialcontract.com/pdf...-one/stein.pdf

Another more lengthy article.

Originally Posted by NCByrd

tuntum

Yeah, that's the one. I guess I didn't care enough to remember how to spell it.

CrazyBird...thanks for that info and wed site....but somehow I just don't think Gobit is really interested in the correct and informative information...
but I appreciate it

Originally Posted by gobits

what makes you a citizen of this country?

My parents were citizens, and their parents, and so on back to when this country was started.

i even heard someone say that birthright citizenship is a "myth". can someone clarify.

The myth is that the 14th Amendment grants birthright citizenship to illegal alien babies. It does not but out corrupt government has decided to give them citizenship anyway.

CrazyBird...thanks for that info and wed site....but somehow I just don't think Gobit is really interested in the correct and informative information...
but I appreciate it
_________________

I figured that to be the case......

Originally Posted by americangirl

Okay, I'll bite.

im not baiting anyone. you dont have to be so defensive whenever someone comes up with an argument or opinion you dont want to hear.

Originally Posted by americangirl

gobits...you are a citizen of the United States if you are born here. Where the confusion occurs is that when the Constitution was originally written, clearly the intent was that you had to be born of parents who were also American citizens..

no, you better check your sources or whoever fed you that biased notion. your analysis of the 14th amendment is incorrect. birthright citizenship has its roots in english common law. Calvin’s Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (160 was particularly important as it established that under english common law “a person's status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth--a person born within the king's dominion owed allegiance to the sovereign, and in turn, was entitled to the king's protection." This same principle was adopted by the newly formed US, as stated by supreme court justice noahh haynes swayne:

"All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country…since as before the Revolution." United States v. Rhodes, 27 Fed. Cas. 785 (1866).

over the years, restrictionists, nationalists, and separatists have tried to re-interpret the 14th amendment to exclude variety of people going back to black slaves, Chinese railroad immigrants, Irish immigrants. essentially, they wanted to change the fundamental principal of citizenship from land to blood:

among modern nations, citizenship at birth is conveyed in one of two ways...either though Jus soli (the right of the soil or the land) meaning that one’s nationality is determined by the place of one's birth...or through jus sanguinis (the right of blood) where nationality is determined by the nationality of one's descent (parents). bbirthright citizenship is the term used for Jus soli as it is applied under current US law.

the 14th amendment was written on the basis of jus soli, not jus sanguinis as many people have tried to convert it to over the years on the basis of ethno-political agenda.

Originally Posted by americangirl

The millions of illegal alien women who flood to the U.S. to pop out their anchor brats.

do you have a factual basis for that or are you making a blanket stereotype accusation?

Originally Posted by americangirl

are taking advantage of the fact that our government seems to think there is some ambiguity with regard to his aspect of our Constituion.

you're right, there is no ambiguity with regard to this aspect of our constitution. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) already dealt with this issue. some people just want to hear what they want to hear.

Originally Posted by americangirl

So most Americans would like to see an amendment to our Constitution that would clearly state that regardless of whether you are born on U.S. soil, you ARE NOT a citizen of the U.S. if your parents weren't citizens at the time of your birth.

again, you make another presumptions that most americans would like to change this part of the constitution without any substantial proof.

Originally Posted by americangirl

The U.S. isn't a free-for-all, big open party. Nobody has a right to come here without our permission.

i agree, US is a soverign nation and its borders must be respected and protected and prevent atrocities of illegal immigration from occurring further.

Originally Posted by redbadger

CrazyBird...thanks for that info and wed site....but somehow I just don't think Gobit is really interested in the correct and informative information...
but I appreciate it

no i am, but you dont wanna hear anything about it because you dont agree with whatever opinion i may have. typical.

Originally Posted by azwreath

Actually, what he's getting at, is trolling. He was here a few days ago as tantum trying to get his little digs in.

He's talking about something I said when I pointed out that Aztlan is a myth.

no im not tantum. trolling is when someone comes into a forum and starts unnecessary raucus and quarrel. instead of coming to an abrupt judgement and name calling based on one post that sounds contrary to what the ideals of this website is about, at least show that your beliefs have some sort of concrete reasons.