Should immigrants have a path to citizenship?

[MAGAnificent]

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but spitting in someones face can be a felony assault. This is because of the various diseases that can be transferred.

Yep. All one has to do is watch a lot of police cam videos on you tube. It's get charged with felony assault all the time for spitting on police officers.

 

[rahl]

Using the purpose of the 14th, I would argue the it does not apply to anchor babies.

The explicit and crystal clear language of the amendment specifically says it does.

 

[upsideguy]

When I say 'these people' are YOU assuming I'm referring to ALL immigrants? That's an incorrect assumption YOU make.No

No. Just know that anytime you ascribe behavior characteristics to a broad group of people, and use "these people" as the subject of a sentence, 99/100 the sentence is going to come across a bigoted statement, because it most likely is a bigoted statement.....

 

[tharock220]

Using the purpose of the 14th, I would argue the it does not apply to anchor babies.

Some argue the 2nd amendment no longer applies because there is no more militia, we have a standing, professional army.

Neither you or those people are part of the US judiciary though. The meaning of the 14th amendment has been established in previous cases, which means if it's not repealed through an amendment then it will have to be examined again. Which means it can be interpreted again after that and again and again and again.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Some argue the 2nd amendment no longer applies because there is no more militia, we have a standing, professional army.

Neither you or those people are part of the US judiciary though. The meaning of the 14th amendment has been established in previous cases, which means if it's not repealed through an amendment then it will have to be examined again. Which means it can be interpreted again after that and again and again and again.

The problem with that argument is you cannot use modern definitions. You must use the definition, as understood, during the year the amendment was written.

The left seems to think you can change the law by changing the definition.

 

[tharock220]

The problem with that argument is you cannot use modern definitions. You must use the definition, as understood, during the year the amendment was written.

The left seems to think you can change the law by changing the definition.

What definitions? The motivations and intentions of the authors of any amendment are unknown to any living human. That's why we have the courts.

And everyone thinks their interpretations are correct.

A new amendment repealing the jus soli part of the 14th amendment and giving congress the power to determine the criteria for citizenship, which it already has under many circumstances, would be best.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

I understand your viewpoint.

Still, nothing over all these years has stopped illegal immigration. The harsh treatment will give many pause to come here. It has come to this extreme because the left is unwilling to help stop the problem. I agree it is harsh and extreme, but nothing else has worked. So I am not going to speak out against what is happening.

If you’re willing to allow the Trump administration to violate the Constitution and the federal statutes which demand the government respect the due process rights of illegal immigrants then you are advocating for actions that are worse, more unlawful than mere improper entry.

And it’s not true the situation hasn’t been resolved due to the Democrats. The Republicans have refused to allow legislation that meets the needs of businesses and instead of participated in a game where they’ve pretended to be opposed to illegal immigration while letting their donors slide.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

we have the best legal immigration system in the world -

This is not true.

 

[Lord of Planar]

What definitions? The motivations and intentions of the authors of any amendment are unknown to any living human. That's why we have the courts.

The historical writings and documentations of debates on the topic when it occurred sheds all the light we need.

And everyone thinks their interpretations are correct.

Fools, if they do not read the text of the time.

A new amendment repealing the jus soli part of the 14th amendment and giving congress the power to determine the criteria for citizenship, which it already has under many circumstances, would be best.

No need. It is clear what they actually meant.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Using the purpose of the 14th, I would argue the it does not apply to anchor babies.

Holy crap. This is a far right extremist sort of position totally at odds with over one hundred years of case law. And the term you’re using, anchor babies is a racist term. You often present yourself as a reasonable conservative on this issue, but your views are very extreme.

 

[Bodi]

I much prefer we turn the country into a police state where everyone must have their papers, law enforcement is invading workplaces and homes and spend billions in order to deport 12 million people or put them in camps.

Obama deported 3 Million illegal immigrants... How upset were you then?


.

 

[Lord of Planar]

If you’re willing to allow the Trump administration to violate the Constitution and the federal statutes which demand the government respect the due process rights of illegal immigrants then you are advocating for actions that are worse, more unlawful than mere improper entry.

I do not believe their actions are illegal.

And it’s not true the situation hasn’t been resolved due to the Democrats. The Republicans have refused to allow legislation that meets the needs of businesses and instead of participated in a game where they’ve pretended to be opposed to illegal immigration while letting their donors slide.

They can only play both sides because they know the democrats will keep it from happening.

Push come to shove, once they show their true colors, the voters will decide if they stay in office or go.

 

[tharock220]

The historical writings and documentations of debates on the topic when it occurred sheds all the light we need.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 is prime example.

Fools, if they do not read the text of the time.

​

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

No need. It is clear what they actually meant.

According to you. There are plenty of other Americans who would say they meant something else.

 

[rahl]

The historical writings and documentations of debates on the topic when it occurred sheds all the light we need.

Fools, if they do not read the text of the time.

No need. It is clear what they actually meant.

“All persons” means exactly the same thing today as it did when the amendment was ratified.

 

[tharock220]

“All persons” means exactly the same thing today as it did when the amendment was ratified.

I don't think the authors even expected there to be an entire industry in China centered on arranging for pregnant women to be able to have their children in the US, but none of the authors of American laws 150 years ago had any clue what things would be like today.

Birth tourism is just a result of those laws. It is what it is, and an executive order isn't really going to change it. If this goes to the Supreme Court I honestly expect no less than a 6-3 decision against Trump, and unanimity by the justices wouldn't surprise me at all.


That's why I want it to be part of any immigration policy.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 is prime example.

​

United States v. Wong Kim Ark



According to you. There are plenty of other Americans who would say they meant something else.

That ruling was simply wrong. Today's court will likely rule correctly. The purpose of amending the constitution was to etch the 1866 Civil Rights Act into stone, making it almost impossible to deny blacks citizenship. There was a debate on the topic. The new language was a heated debat, and the text is still debated over today. But passage would not have occurred without the voting congress believing it would not be used as broadly as it is now.

The Citizenship Clause was proposed by Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan on May 30, 1866, as an amendment to the joint resolution from the House of Representatives which had framed the initial draft of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. The heated debate on the proposed new language in the Senate focused on whether Howard's proposed language would apply more broadly than the wording of the 1866 Civil Rights Act.​

​

Howard said that the clause "is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States." He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons" a comment which would later raise questions as to whether Congress had originally intended that U.S.-born children of foreign parents were to be included as citizens.​

The 1866 civil Rights act did not allow anyone born here automatic citizenship. Again, the purpose was to give former slaves citizenship.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[j brown's body]

Trump has done no such thing. And specifically what industries require undocumented immigrants????????

Legal immigrants gain citizenship in the US all the time All they have to do is go through the legal process. Illegal immigrants have by definition committed crimes.

He supports agricultural workers and condemns them on alternating days.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I don't think the authors even expected there to be an entire industry in China centered on arranging for pregnant women to be able to have their children in the US, but none of the authors of American laws 150 years ago had any clue what things would be like today.

Birth tourism is just a result of those laws. It is what it is, and an executive order isn't really going to change it. If this goes to the Supreme Court I honestly expect no less than a 6-3 decision against Trump, and unanimity by the justices wouldn't surprise me at all.


That's why I want it to be part of any immigration policy.

Can you imagine a foreign country having hundreds, maybe thousands of children born here, take them back to their native country, teach them infiltration and war tactics, then 20 to 30 years later, attack from within?

 

[stealthycat]

This is not true.

it absolutely is

some nations are very strict, no nation allows the sheer numbers to legally immigrate like we do and I doubt they ever have on any years

we are the best in the world at allowing workers to come in, students, VISA holders ..... we ask that its done legally and like Bill Clinton, Hillary, Obama, Biden and Schumer have all said - crack down, deport, secure border

I'm with them - aren't you ?

 

[rahl]

That ruling was simply wrong. Today's court will likely rule correctly. The purpose of amending the constitution was to etch the 1866 Civil Rights Act into stone, making it almost impossible to deny blacks citizenship. There was a debate on the topic. The new language was a heated debat, and the text is still debated over today. But passage would not have occurred without the voting congress believing it would not be used as broadly as it is now.

The Citizenship Clause was proposed by Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan on May 30, 1866, as an amendment to the joint resolution from the House of Representatives which had framed the initial draft of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment. The heated debate on the proposed new language in the Senate focused on whether Howard's proposed language would apply more broadly than the wording of the 1866 Civil Rights Act.​

​

Howard said that the clause "is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States." He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons" a comment which would later raise questions as to whether Congress had originally intended that U.S.-born children of foreign parents were to be included as citizens.​

The 1866 civil Rights act did not allow anyone born here automatic citizenship. Again, the purpose was to give former slaves citizenship.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Nope. It’s why the amendment says “all persons” and doesn’t say “former slaves”.

 

[j brown's body]

I don't think the authors even expected there to be an entire industry in China centered on arranging for pregnant women to be able to have their children in the US, but none of the authors of American laws 150 years ago had any clue what things would be like today.

Birth tourism is just a result of those laws. It is what it is, and an executive order isn't really going to change it. If this goes to the Supreme Court I honestly expect no less than a 6-3 decision against Trump, and unanimity by the justices wouldn't surprise me at all.


That's why I want it to be part of any immigration policy.

Sounds like a job for the legislature.

 

[j brown's body]

it absolutely is

some nations are very strict, no nation allows the sheer numbers to legally immigrate like we do and I doubt they ever have on any years

we are the best in the world at allowing workers to come in, students, VISA holders ..... we ask that its done legally and like Bill Clinton, Hillary, Obama, Biden and Schumer have all said - crack down, deport, secure border

I'm with them - aren't you ?

Sinking bi-partisan border bills isn't going to get us anywhere.

 

[LostInSeattle]

Not really.

Yes really.

Prominent Democrats exclaimed 'Who's going to pick our crops?' upon hearing ICE conducting their immigration enforcement actions.
They've self-identified.

Everyone eats food. It's not "Democratic" crops but "our" as in "our nation's" crops. I guarantee you many prominent Republicans from farm states thought the same thing, they just didn't say it. So did a whole lot of farmers, many of whom are Republicans.

It is a serious public policy concern to change certain employment patterns overnight, especially in an inflexible industry like agriculture. Asking about the impacts of such a proposed change is exactly what

Trix is just throwing out that outdated meme that Democrats are pro-slavery/pro Jim Crow. None of that has been true for 50 years. It was the RNC that was under a federal consent decree from 1982 to 2017 - 35 years - for voter suppression that violated the Civil Rights Act. You want to talk about perpetuating Jim Crow, let's talk about that.

No. Trix's post was most definitely trolling, and it's the kind of thing that creates division and dissension - over nothing - when what we need is less of both, not more. It's the action of a partisan hack who seeks nothing more than to denigrate the other side, and not of someone interested in a real back and forth so both parties can learn. The more I read of her posts, the more this appears to be the case.

 

[j brown's body]

Births to foreign parents on US soil hasn't changed much over the past 25 years. Big uptick lately. They want to be part of the Trump Golden Age.

 

[AJG]

Those that come legally, which WOULD be law abiding, yes.

If they've lived here for years and the only crime they ever committed was crossing the border illegally, are they not law-abiding citizens? To me that's like saying I'm not a law abiding citizen because I stole candy from a convenient store when I was 5, or because I occasionally jaywalk. Maybe the degree of the crime is slightly greater, but if they've followed the rules, acted like a decent person and contributed to society, then it's essentially a victimless crime. There's no sense in saying that person isn't law abiding or denying them a path to citizenship.