Rethinking Birthright Citizenship

ahh
the peasants mill around whining

understand this
as long as we experience a net gain, you may rabble rouse to your hearts content

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

get up, paddy!
step up to the plate and bat!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh, me I was just noticing the flexibility you had about changing times and built in change mechanisms by the founders and the constitution not be a Bible, for example. An evolving document. Hence, rights to bear arms perhaps can be infringed on in your estimation also. One for you in any case on that issue.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To not be not noticed as the enemy, find an 'enemy' to occupy them.
Oh, it's those welfare mothers, they are your problem.
Oh, it's those addicts.
Oh, it's those homosexuals.
Oh, it's those anchor babies.

It is always amazing and such a great irony how the biggest problems are always caused by the weaker and weakest members of society. If only those relatively powerless - who are victimizing us - could be brought in line, things would be OK.

Like a Latino baby around my neck this day is. Poor me. Poor me.
Thank god all the people with real power are so nice and benevolent or we would really have problems.

 

So I'm guessing that you never did figure out what Article 5 was.

 

Oh? And you're basing this guess on what exactly you angry little man?

 

Then you'd gladly give up what article 5 is?

Because if you had a clue as to what it was, then it would be obvious what my point in referencing it was.

 

The 14th amendment was never intended to confer citizenship upon the children of illegal aliens. The phrase: “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof” was intended to prevent that. Only children born to aliens here legally, intending to become citizens, who had previously renounced all allegiance to any other government would automatically become citizens. If you need any proof, consider the fact that Indians did not automatically become citizens under the 14th amendment.

Indeed, it was mainly Indians, the Chinese, and transient aliens that congress had in mind when they inserted the phrase “Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof” into the 14th amendment.

All congress would have to do is pass a law stating that this is the new (and correct) interpretation and it would end birthright citizenship. I'm sure there'd be a lawsuit immediately filed and the Supreme Court would then decide the issue.

Heres a good discussion of the issue:
http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html

 

Geez, you're just not getting it are you. I know what you're talking about, and I actually agree with you for the most part. But that was never my issue with you to begin with. How about getting rid of that chip on your shoulder and actually reading what I posted?

 

On what grounds could someone file a lawsuit?

 

After all this time confering citizenship on anyone who happens to be born here even if they're just changing planes at the time, many see it as a right despite the fact that this was never the intent of the 14th ammendment. Should congress pass a law restoring the original intent, I guarantee you there would be a lawsuit filed probably the same day. If not the same day, certainly as soon as a child born here of illegal aliens was denied some benefit of citizenship. And who knows what the Supreme Court would decide.

 

If the US ever manages to get to that, I sure hope I'm still around to see it. It sounds like it'd be a really interesting case to follow.

 

The supreme court would decide in the favor of birthright citizenship.

The only way to resolve the problem is to do two things. First we need to get a Congress and/or President who isn't afraid to stand up against the unconstitutional rulings put out by the Supreme Court and then we need an amendment that spells out the limitations on the courts as per their powers regarding 10th amendment issues and other cases outside of the jurisdiction given to them under the Constitution.

 

How silly can you get? (Ooh, yeah!)

(chortle!)

I admit it was a tough read. I had a hard time because I didn't realize at first it wasn't a comedy piece:

It's a melting pot. No, it's a mortar and pestle. No, it's a salad.

The melting pot metaphor represents society as a melting pot, not a mortar and pestle.

Don't get me wrong, I get the point. Separatists and nationalists feel crushed because they can't discriminate the way they want to. But really ... I have a hard time taking that kind of balderdash seriously.

Seriously, man, how do you eat a salad?

There's a fairly reasonable sentence, yet strangely its value is overlooked by the author.

These talking points tend to overlook the emergence of a backlash against cultural respect. As colonial and traditional supremacy were rejected by the empowerment minorities who suffered under exploitative systems, the empowered majority began to pretend it was oppressed and violated. The "real culture of differences" feeds off that very conflict.

Consumerist supremacy? Now that is a horrifying notion.

We return here to the conflict between an empowerment majority that fears for its supremacist goals and empowerment minorities in various stages of learning how to assert their considerable influence. That this relationship should be defined by conflict is a challenge for the current and future generations; abating the sins of, and salving the wounds inflicted by prior generations will take some time. That process only goes more slowly if the supremacist holdouts insist on complicating the process.

It's a cheap, self-fulfilling cycle. Complain that there is a conflict, fuel the conflict, assert that the conflict precludes any solution.

As the rest of the article pertains to Europe, I'll leave it to the Europeans for now.

Perhaps in its original Italian, the redefinition of a melting pot as a mortar and pestle to crush cultural origins and differences makes more sense. In English, though, it seems rather a desperate ploy.
______________________

Notes:

Sforza, Tiziana. "Melting pot or salad bowl?" Trans. Corina Gafner. CafeBabel.com. March 6, 2006. See http://www.cafebabel.com/en/article.asp?T=T&Id=6216

 

Doesn't congress have the power under the constitution to limit the juristiction of the courts?

The constitution, Article III, Section 2: "the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."​

 

I don't think that Congress knows that it has any authority as they have given away all of their powers to the Judiciary and the Executive except the budget authority, somewhat.

 

Why shouldn't a state try to preserve its own unique flavor, and expect assimilation and a blending of ingrediants into that unique flavor, as opposed to a refusal to ever assimilate and there being no common culture to hold a state together?

 

(Insert title here)

Should I quote you in reply?

Basically you don't know what you're talking about.​

Or would it be more useful to revisit what I wrote earlier?

The "assimilation" you note is, in actuality, a two-way process. Ever actually melt disparate ingredients together in a pot? Like cheese dip, for instance ....

.... As you mix all the ingredients together and melt them in the pot, the majority (e.g. Velveeta) dominates the mix. But the Ro-Tel does not become Velveeta. The spices do not become Velveeta. The resulting mixture does not, in fact, retain solely the properties of the Velveeta. The resulting mixture adopts a texture that reflects the influence of the Ro-Tel, and a color that reflects especially the chili powder and cumin. And the flavor? Well, if you're imagining it still tastes like straight, unadulterated Velveeta, you're fooling yourself.

Expecting the minority ingredients in the melting pot to simply convert to a Velveeta polymer is, quite obviously, unrealistic. They have an inevitable, undeniable influence.​

A refusal to ever assimilate is problematic. However, the assimilation that is, as you suggested, currently considered a racist ideal, is only a one-way process. It is more appropriate to say that the refusal to adapt is problematic. As the immigrants adapt to the influences of their new home, so also do the people of that nation adapt to the influences of their newfound neighbors.

The blending of ingredients into a unique flavor is one thing. But it is, in fact, not something you preserve. It is something you develop. Arbitrarily declaring a unique flavor and attempting to preserve it is a supremacist notion.

 

You keep talking about things like cheese that blends, as opposed to a salad with carrots and tomatoes in it that don't blend.

The melting pot is something to support, this tossed salad bullshit (aka multiculturalism) needs to be thrown out.

 

Citizens are under no obligation to conform to any perceived "American" culture. That's what freedom is about. The US has been multicultural from the beginning.