Reply With Quote
it's interesting reading
originalists and other interested people can find the Senate debates regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (the immediate precursor to the 14th Amendment) here. seems pretty clear the majority then thought persons born on US soil are citizens regardless of the immigration status of their parents. they understood they were creating standards for citizenship and civil rights beyond freed slaves.
https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampag....db&recNum=602
Last edited by Winehole23; 10-30-2018 at 10:54 AM.
it's interesting reading
nice find; thanks for sharing.
can't take credit for myself, saw it @skantrow on Twitter
All of the lefts wetdream Europe doesn't have birth right citizenship but it's racist for America to not want it.
we're not Europe. thanks for clearing that up.All of the lefts wetdream Europe doesn't have birth right citizenship but it's racist for America to not want it.
there are normative arguments against birthright citizenship. yours is that Hispanics aren't smart enough to be proper citizens and vote (or will vote) en bloc for the Democrats.
were there any others I left out?
lol Nathan doesn't care about the cons ution.All of the lefts wetdream Europe doesn't have birth right citizenship but it's racist for America to not want it.
just curious, Nathan89, who exactly gets to be in your ethnostate after the par ion of the USA?
How are illegal immigrants ruining the country?
Birthright citizenship in the 21st century is very puzzling
Major example of why I oppose socialist aspects in America
No, there are intelligent Hispanics and I'd take them into the country legally. That's a merit based system. It's not discriminatory. Yes, they appear to underperform on tests which is a threat to the country. That's why we need a merit based system.
That's Cubans that have different inclinations for obvious reasons than the vast majority of Hispanics.
I see a polls showing that Trump got 29% and Clinton got 65% of the vote.
he sounds somewhat like Sen. Cowen in the Senate debate posted on the previous page.
a proper "white man's government" protects and includes white men; others by definition should be excluded and not protected.
Just calling out the idiocy of positioning this as racism when it's pretty common practice to not reward illegal entry into your country.
No, I'm for merit based legal immigration. Hispanics wouldn't be discriminated on under that standard.
that's about right; my cite was mistakenI see a polls showing that Trump got 29% and Clinton got 65% of the vote.
how would you do it?
Quote any comment that indicates this or my conversation with you is over.
The supreme Court will rule on it.
you said you desire a par ion of the US because immigration from Central America is ruining the country or soon will.
presumably you'd also exclude other "low performing" groups as defined by Chuck.
which groups would those be, by the way?
I'd have a merit based legal system. That's not an "ethnostate". We already have loads of diversity in the country so that's just moronic. No one is pushing for an ethnostate state. You know I'm not but talking in bad faith.
wish in one hand and in the other, you'll see which one fills up faster.
on the contrary, you're using invidiously defined merit as a fig leaf for racism.
Anybody on the right ever read a history book or have any sort of understanding as to why the countries in central and south america are the way they are today?
how would this so-called merit based system work?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
