Other
A problem exists,
Lets fix it as compassionate men and not reactionary animals.
Any takers?
Yes, but I would not take it away from those who have it already and it needs to be changed federally. I would not expect it to happen immediately, but I think it should happen soon.
Yes, but I would not take it away from those who have it already and it needs to be changed federally. I would not expect it to happen immediately, but I think it should happen soon.
Had we adopted this law in 1795, we would all be illegals.
fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution said:Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Looks like they should not be denied citizenship.
Which is why that Arizona bill doesn't really pass constitutional muster. However, I think most people believe that the 14th Amendment was meant to cover freed slaves and their children. At that time, I'm sure they never imagined that we would be to a point where it is necessary to regulate the number of people who are coming into our country from other countries. Now it is being used as a loophole. Most likely it should have been changed when we initially enacted immigration laws. But since it wasn't, it would be good to do it now. Since we do have immigration laws, it makes sense that we are trying to regulate citizenship of our country. Rewording the 14th Amendment to excludes making future "anchor babies" citizens doesn't actually take rights away from any US citizens, as long as the wording ensures all US citizens' children are considered citizens.
Until the constitution is changed, it is still wrong to deny citizenship to people born in this country.
Looks like they should not be denied citizenship.
Letting the children of illegals have citizenship is the equivalent of letting someone keep a piece of stolen property that they bought off a crook seeing how anchor babies were only born here because their parents trespassed into the US.
Had we adopted this law in 1795, we would all be illegals.
I voted no. Denying someone US citizenship if they are born here is unconstitutional. Unless we amend the constitution no one should have their child's citizenship denied.
Glad to see you're an advocate of slavery, you know...since you think whatever was the case 200+ years ago should be the same as it is today.
:roll:
No, it's just an amusing 'what if'.
America was populated from distant lands except for the local tribes. Many large groups received citizenship and cheap land just for coming here. The land is expensive now and the owners are attempting to turn America into a gated community. I cannot abide by this mentality. If those born here will not be American citizens, will they be citizens at all, anywhere?
Stupid idea.
No, it's just an amusing 'what if'.
America was populated from distant lands except for the local tribes. Many large groups received citizenship and cheap land just for coming here. The land is expensive now and the owners are attempting to turn America into a gated community. I cannot abide by this mentality.
So you think that the Mexicans should pick cotton now? That's basically what they are doing, working very hard in the sun all day for little money.You can't abide by the mentality that what was true 200+ years ago can't feasibly be true today? You say no, yet your words keep pointing to you being all in favor of the days of forcing blacks to pick cotton. Since your only argument seems to be "its what it was before".
Previously these people were coming into an area that was relatively lightly populated. When the Europeans and then the Americans conquered the various portions of land and declared it "Theirs" the land was wide open, spread out, and needing to be lived upon. For these conquering people to be able to even put together a society they NEEDED individuals, as many as they could, to choose to come over and be a part of it or else it would've failed. There was a necessity to allowing it to happen as it benefited their goal as a society.
This is not the case today when our cities are over populated, our welfare system is financially strained, our unemployment is rising, our laws cause private industries to take great losses, and there is no longer a over arching large societal need to open and complete flooding of individuals into the country.
If you own an apartment complex you need to have people that want to move in or else you're not going to get any return on your investment. So you start off with great deals and loose regulations. However 20 years later if you're the best apartment complex in town its reasonable to have higher prices, tighter regulations, and a more strenuous application process because now its no longer you needing any and all individuals to make your business work but instead having such a huge demand for your space that you must be more stringent to maintain the high standards you've come to embody.
You probably use to work for $5.00 an hour or something similar. Should you be expected to ALWAYS make that because it was good enough for you at one point so it must always be fine? You once lived with your parents, should you always remain living with your parents because what was good for you at one point will always be best for you? No. As time goes on and situations change the need for various things change and shift and thus the reaction to those things also changes and shifts.
In the late 1700/early 1800's the U.S. needed anyone and everyone it could get to come into the country to provide a base grouping of citizenship and to spur it forward then it made sense to be more open with immigration. As time went on and the need for more outside individuals became less and less then the need for more stringent and picky immigration standards was also needed.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?