Thread: No to birthright citizenship?

Originally Posted by Bowman

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.

you need to brush up on your history before trashing my country as corrupt.

If you knew the answer, or at least the answer you prefer, why did you ask the "baited" question??

Originally Posted by gofer

If you knew the answer, or at least the answer you prefer, why did you ask the "baited" question??

it's called having a reasonable debate without all the hate mongering. regardless, i was merely trying to understand the other side of the issue by starting a debatable question, but of course you label it as baiting to quelch it before it even began. come on, thats not how america works.

Seems to me the ONE court case that is of any relevance in today's courts missed their chance to set the record straight because they argued the use of one word: subject. "Subject to jurisdiction" implies that the persons in question would need to be here legally for the amendment to apply to them. Unfortunately, those that wrote the amendment couldn't have imagined a time when the law would be applied to the practices it currently is and left room for debate. It was simply argued that the law didn't say "within" so they got off and set forth a chain of events that has left portions of this once great nation in ruins and continues to erode the rest.

Luckily, precedents are just that - precedents, and have the opportunity to be changed, which is what we all are hoping and praying will happen.

As for your other examples, common law set forth by the king before this country was a country wouldn't hold up in any court and for you to suggest that is laughable. Kudos to you for that one, smart guy.

Originally Posted by gobits

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.

I don't happen to believe that you aren't tuntum. You have the same tone to your posts and apparently it's escaped you that much can be told by one's style....punctuation, etc.

Now, if you'll excuse me.....I have better things to do with my time.

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

No you are the one that is typical....I am an American Citizen...and a American by birthright... and you are not...clearly
Adios gopit!...
Gotta listen to 1200 WKRS AM right now...

Originally Posted by thedude

Seems to me the ONE court case that is of any relevance in today's courts missed their chance to set the record straight because they argued the use of one word: subject. "Subject to jurisdiction" implies that the persons in question would need to be here legally for the amendment to apply to them. Unfortunately, those that wrote the amendment couldn't have imagined a time when the law would be applied to the practices it currently is and left room for debate..

on the contrary, the amendment was written to encompass untrackable freed and runaway slaves and western european immigrants flooding the eastern US at the time.

Originally Posted by thedude

As for your other examples, common law set forth by the king before this country was a country wouldn't hold up in any court and for you to suggest that is laughable. Kudos to you for that one, smart guy.

im amazed at your reading comprehension level, "smart guy". i said the basis of the current US law has its roots on the old english law. United States v. Rhodes, 27 Fed. Cas. 785 (1866) is not english common law. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) is not english common law.

Originally Posted by redbadger

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

No you are the one that is typical....I am an American Citizen...and a American by birthright....
Adios gopit!...

absolutely makes no sense but its a nice way to get out of a losing argument. adios redbadger!

The first sentence of the 14th Amendment says:

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

How can illegals be subject to the United States jurisdiction when they don't pay taxes and contribute to the economy that they so eagerly drain?
They send most of their money back to Mexico, which contributes back to their country, which "they are subject to the jurisdiction therof".

To summarize: It takes an American to make an American.

Yawning....