Tricks the left plays to get their way

[Marcus Bryant]

No, the immigration laws have changes since my latest forefather immigrated from Scotland.

So you claim.

[ElNono]

My mind can be changed. Is she pale white?

fify

[LnGrrrR]

You mean the 14th Amendment?

Damn those Amendments!

[LnGrrrR]

Of course that's what he means. The 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were clearly for making former slaves, full citizens.

In section 1 of the 14th:



Those from foreign countries are subject to that country's jurisdiction first.

-AND- is a logical qualifier. It doesn't say OR.

Really WC? You don't remember when I schooled you on this in an earlier thread? Where I brought up the very scenario whereby the congressman argue about a theoretical gypsy child being born, and whether or not citizenship should be granted?

And how those arguments were heard, possible "fix" actions as you discussed were dismissed, and the 14th Amendment was ratified anyways?

[LnGrrrR]

Remember how I pointed out that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a specific clause intended for children born to foreign dignitaries/ambassadors?

[Wild Cobra]

Really WC? You don't remember when I schooled you on this in an earlier thread? Where I brought up the very scenario whereby the congressman argue about a theoretical gypsy child being born, and whether or not citizenship should be granted?

And how those arguments were heard, possible "fix" actions as you discussed were dismissed, and the 14th Amendment was ratified anyways?

One congressman's argument doesn't make it so for the reason.

Beam me up Scotty, there little intelligent life here.

[Wild Cobra]

Remember how I pointed out that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a specific clause intended for children born to foreign dignitaries/ambassadors?

Yes, but that was not the majority opinion now, was it?

[ElNono]

One congressman's argument doesn't make it so for the reason.

Beam me up Scotty, there little intelligent life here.

But we should take you at your word, since you're an expert cons utionalist?

Little intelligent life indeed.

[LnGrrrR]

Yes, but that was not the majority opinion now, was it?

Uhm.. is the 14th Amendment ratified? I'm pretty sure it is, and there's no clause in there specifically denying citizenship to "anchor babies". Since, ya know, that whole scenario was brought up in argument, and the idea of that clause was voted against.

Not to mention that US is based more on common law, and numerous court cases have further entrenched the view that being born in America = citizenship.

[LnGrrrR]

One congressman's argument doesn't make it so for the reason.

Beam me up Scotty, there little intelligent life here.

Do you expect every congressman to argue points for bills they favor? What matters is their vote. Was the 14th Amendment ratified or not?

The fact that the very idea of anchor babies was brought up, that your specific scenario was considered as an amendment, and it was NOT voted into the bill, would lead one to logically assume that your interpretation of the bill is faulty.

[ElNono]

So, what's the 'left' angle on this story?

[Wild Cobra]

Uhm.. is the 14th Amendment ratified? I'm pretty sure it is, and there's no clause in there specifically denying citizenship to "anchor babies". Since, ya know, that whole scenario was brought up in argument, and the idea of that clause was voted against.

Not to mention that US is based more on common law, and numerous court cases have further entrenched the view that being born in America = citizenship.

We also didn't have the same established immigration standards then. Immigration was still open to all back then.

[LnGrrrR]

We also didn't have the same established immigration standards then. Immigration was still open to all back then.

That may be, but it doesn't invalidate the current legal ruling. If you want to lobby your congressman to strike out or replace the 14th Amendment, hey, that's your right. But to argue that courts have been misinterpreting the bill for a hundred+ years is wrong-headed.

[Wild Cobra]

That may be, but it doesn't invalidate the current legal ruling. If you want to lobby your congressman to strike out or replace the 14th Amendment, hey, that's your right. But to argue that courts have been misinterpreting the bill for a hundred+ years is wrong-headed.

I agree with you there. I would say the legal ruling need to go to the supreme court, but both sides are probably afraid of what the results may be.

[Marcus Bryant]

Uhm.. is the 14th Amendment ratified? I'm pretty sure it is

Don't worry, I'm sure there's someone somewhere who claims that it wasn't, though usually such arguments are reserved for the 16th Amendment. If whottt was still around I'm sure he could tell us whether or not the Klan is still plotting a challenge to the Civil War amendments.

[Marcus Bryant]

What exactly is the real problem with the standard that birth leads to citizenship? Seems like a clear and straightforward long-lasting standard and grounded clearly in the Cons ution.

[Wild Cobra]

Don't worry, I'm sure there's someone somewhere who claims that it wasn't, though usually such arguments are reserved for the 16th Amendment. If whottt was still around I'm sure he could tell us whether or not the Klan is still plotting a challenge to the Civil War amendments.

Whott happened to Whott?

[Marcus Bryant]

Naturally some on the right think it's a good idea to turn the issue of illegal immigration into an opportunity to question a century of settled cons utional law on birthright citizenship and to advocate that the state be allowed to stop individuals and ask for their papers. If there were a bunch of Irishmen or Russians sneaking in to the US nobody would give a .

[Wild Cobra]

Naturally some on the right think it's a good idea to turn the issue of illegal immigration into an opportunity to question a century of settled cons utional law on birthright citizenship and to advocate that the state be allowed to stop individuals and ask for their papers. If there were a bunch of Irishmen or Russians sneaking in to the US nobody would give a .

ASSume as you wish. You are wrong.

[Wild Cobra]

do you know why the suit was thrown out?

Late filing.

[Blake]

What exactly is the real problem with the standard that birth leads to citizenship? Seems like a clear and straightforward long-lasting standard and grounded clearly in the Cons ution.

....steeped in history, culture and tradition

[Blake]

Naturally some on the right think it's a good idea to turn the issue of illegal immigration into an opportunity to question a century of settled cons utional law on birthright citizenship and to advocate that the state be allowed to stop individuals and ask for their papers. If there were a bunch of Irishmen or Russians sneaking in to the US nobody would give a .

or Canadians

[Blake]

Late filing.

yup.

and they will of course appeal the decision.

[Wild Cobra]

yup.

and they will of course appeal the decision.

I doubt it.

When I called my Congressman's office, they said they were looking into such changes in legislation. I doubt she would be deported. Cause too much of an uproar.

Still, she cannot drive, work, or join the military until this gets fixed.

[Blake]

I doubt it.

I bet they try

Once Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Pro Tem Charles Corrigan signs off on his ruling, which should be sometime this week, Catt and her mother have up to 30 days to appeal.

When I called my Congressman's office, they said they were looking into such changes in legislation. I doubt she would be deported. Cause too much of an uproar.

I agree, especially considering it was the state of Oregon that gave them Catt to begin with.

Still, she cannot drive, work, or join the military until this gets fixed.

Yeah, that part sucks.