Should we retain birthright citizenship as is or change it?

Of course not. The system as it is today is replacing the old far right class with them, and America is, imo, better off.

 

With who, children born of illegal aliens, you think THEY are the future of our country? We are better off having people come here illegally and having a baby and they take that baby back to their own country and raise it there but it has US citizenship? How do you arrive at these positions?

 

The birthright citizens I have known from CA to GA to WA to TX to UT the last sixty years are exactly what we want for the future.

 

And their parents were here legally of illegally? And that you know a few has little impact of the hundreds of thousand we have doing it. Why is that good for the country.

 

Deflection, deflection, deflection... (sigh!). Honestly, Jake, do you ever answer a question directly?

Now, after telling us that the bad guys make up no more than "2%" (without giving any substantiation for that viewpoint), next you want someone else to tell you why that "2%" is something that anyone would not want injected into the United States. I'd think you must be a lawyer, but if you are, you must have a very thin list of paying clients.

Visit the 'colonias' in Juarez, Mexico. After you've done that, let's talk. Maybe you'll be, uh, more 'rational' by then.... Or better yet, go spend a few weeks in Honduras or Guatemala. Actually, even far better than that, migrate there and stay there for the rest of your life!

 

Honestly, pollycy, you are giving us your opinion and no sustainable facts. You undermine your thesis by posting that way. pollycy? post real facts that show the 2% are 'evul'.

 

I have spent time in Mexico and Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala.

Having spent my childhood and teen years in a San Diego County, CA beach town with thousands of birthright citizens, I can tell you immigrant haters you are full of nonsense.

 

I suppose one can dream. But birthright citizenship isn't going to change without a Constitutional Amendment. The 14th Amendment is pretty specific, short and to the point of birthright citizenship. No EO can change that. But if I could change it, birthright citizenship wouldn't apply to any illegal alien. That would be the only change.

 

Election over. Issue is dead for 2 yrs.

 

Perhaps not but it isn't would you support an amendment to change birthright citizenship and restrict it to only offspring of permanent residents and citizens?

 

You think I am full of nonsense? Based on your observations and analyses to this point, I am quite content that you should think so, Jake. We've both had a lot of experience with Latin American countries, it would seem (?). Obviously, we've each developed rather markedly different opinions about what we've seen and understood.

We've already seen what illegal aliens have done to our country wherever they've been allowed to infest the United States with any significant saturation. And we're going to see a LOT more now, with the 'caravan' movement. And with the success of the first ones, there will be more and more of them.

You seem to like it, Jake, and I don't. There... at least maybe we can agree about THAT, if nothing else.... And there's an admittedly mischievous part of me that hopes you end up with bunches of illegal aliens moving in and f*cking up the city or town where YOU live. It's people with your attitude who create a permissive, law-breaking attitude that welcomes this kind of disaster....

. "Buenos dias, gringo pendejo! We're your new neighbors!" .

 

We have had "illegal" "invaders" of our country since our forebears came to Plymouth Rock: my relatives on shore met my relatives from the boat. My relatives illegally swam the Red and Sabine Rivers into Mexican Texas then overthrew the legal government. Yet somehow all of this has worked out, and that includes interning Japanese citizens a long time ago.

Quit being fraidy cats scared of your shadows.

 

Here is my vote:
*Change it and eliminate for all except those here legally
Knowing why there is a 14th Amendment, all there needs to be is the proper use of said
amendment. Back in the late 1800s, there were three amendments passed to remedy the issue of slavery and the former slaves of this nation and their progeny. There is no way possible that either of the three amendments, 13th, 14th, and 15th can be used or "interpreted" for any other reason than what I have explained, i.e., remedy for slavery, and all who wish to use said amendments for other than their original intended purpose, are nothing more that agents of a foreign entity that seeks to undermine these United States and the duly elected governments and "laws" that have been passed and instated for the benefit of citizens of these United States of America.

I know, "but you are a Muslim", the Peanut Gallery will chant further displaying their outright contempt for the concept(s) of the "Rule of Law" as it refers to this Republic and its constitutions, which are supposed to be THE LAW OF THE LAND(S)!

 

Is the following representative of intent?

Remember, I did not make the statement . . . YOU DID!

 

AlifQadr, yes, the American southerners intended to make Texas and the southwest their own.

You think 2% of the inhabitants of this country are even thinking of doing the same. In other words, your statement "of intent" is meaningless in our world today.

 

"Should we retain birthright citizenship as is or change it?"

Great question. I will answer it, if and only if, you can tell me what the current status/definition of birthright citizenship we have in this country now.

I'll wait........

 

p.s., I'll give y'all a hint at what I am trying to say. Did the 14th Amendment apply to all the so called "native" Americans born in this country? If you say yes, then all "native" Americans were US citizen from the date of the ratification of the 14th Amendment till now. Or, maybe not.

 

My relatives arrived from Germany LEGALLY. They applied for citizenship LEGALLY. Nothing unique about it, Jake... it's been done countless times by people who understand what the hell the word "LEGAL" means....

If the Central Americans, or the Mexicans, or even more Germans want to come in here LEGALLY, then I've got no problem with that whatsoever....

 

Immigrants came to America, illegally and legally, in different eras, and it all worked out. I have no trouble at all with asylum petitioners. I have no trouble with keeping families together in supervised housing and not roaming the country. I do have trouble thinking these women and children and the few men are any threat our culture.

 

Ah, but they are. They suck up our tax dollars and bring in criminals of all degrees. ****'um! If they want freedom they would stay home and fight their government not suck off the tit of ours.

 

So by 3 to 1 submitters believe we should eliminate the free for all that exist now and regulate who does get birthright citizenship.

 

There was no country when they arrived at Jamestown and Plymouth Rock there was wilderness with some roving bands of other people who came here from the other direction.

 

Bluesguy demonstrates his lack of knowledge of American history, culture, and geography.

 

Oh? Then educate us, Jake. What nation was in existence here in what would later be the United States, when the first European explorers and settlers arrived? Let's start with something fairly simple like that.

Be sure to tell us some of the basics, like how their government was structured, what their national charter or constitution consisted of, what written language their laws appeared in, what their national borders were, the chronology of their history, etc.

 

I truly love the fall back to the term legally when it come to Mexico and the South West where the US invaded Mexico and took half of that nation total lands at bayonet point to turn the land seized into slave states.

Kind of hard to take seriously the mounting of a moral legal high horse of how dare the Mexicans not honor our laws when they enter the country to do work for us that need to be done.