Texas Denies American-Born Children Of Immigrants Citizenship

[gotbeer]

Texas Denies American-Born Children Of Immigrants Citizenship

 

[TobiasFunke]

Can Texas (and Florida) just go away already and never come back

[Jay]

Surprised Obama hasn't sued Texas yet over this one.

[Blarg]

I actually don't have a problem with this. I never liked the entire anchor baby scam for citizenship rights.

[Crampknees]

In the comments you have the Constitution-Cons screaming screw the 14th Amendment. Cons need to get me CliffsNotes on just which Amendments are good to be changed and which are not.  

 

I guess the answer would be the Founding Fathers didn't write it so it is fair game. 

[Jay]

I believe we have many laws to limit gun ownership which is supposedly protected by the 2nd Amendment.

 

Therefore it isn't a stretch that there could be a law limiting birthright citizenship to those who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen.

[Schildog]

In the comments you have the Constitution-Cons screaming screw the 14th Amendment. Cons need to get me CliffsNotes on just which Amendments are good to be changed and which are not.  

 

I guess the answer would be the Founding Fathers didn't write it so it is fair game. 

 

this.

[Thomas]

White people compaining about immigration. Still my favorite thing ever.

[TobiasFunke]

In white people's defense, It's a lot different coming over from Ireland and registering at Ellis Island than it is crossing the desert and getting a job roofing in El Paso.

 

Though it was also an easier process then than it is now (obviously)

Edited July 15, 2015 by TobiasFunke

[juansavage1]

In the comments you have the Constitution-Cons screaming screw the 14th Amendment. Cons need to get me CliffsNotes on just which Amendments are good to be changed and which are not.

I guess the answer would be the Founding Fathers didn't write it so it is fair game.

The 14th amendment was intended for freed slaves, not immigration.

[TobiasFunke]

Authorities can't/won't enforce "what it was intended for" they enforce the letter of the law.

[Glen]

The 14th amendment was intended for freed slaves, not immigration.

The second amendment was intended for militias with muskets, not rednecks with bazookas.

[Tank]

Arizona has asked for federal help with immigration, and when they didn't get it, they took things into their own hands. Texas seems to be doing the same thing.

I don't have a problem with this.

[Lhalo]

Can Texas (and Florida) just go away already and never come back

Texas can. I believe it is in their state constitution.

[Thomas]

Texas can. I believe it is in their state constitution.

 

I believe they have already tried that.

[Jay]

Jade Helm?

[juansavage1]

Authorities can't/won't enforce "what it was intended for" they enforce the letter of the law.

That's not true. Look at the recent Obamacare ruling, where the letter of the law didn't matter.

[Hollyw00d]

Texas sucks

[Crampknees]

Jade Helm?

Jade Helm exercises started today. Now the announcement of this, maybe Obama isn't really taking over the country but gonna go round up small brown people. That Obama is tricky, he keeps trying to make himself look good, this could be a historic day. 

 

Obama fools all and deports all of Texas and steals Trumps voters, rewrites 22nd Amendment and BOOM, Obama/Hillary 2016.  

[arch stanton]

The 14th amendment was intended for freed slaves, not immigration.

You claim to be a fan of logic. Let's use some.

 

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

 

The use of the word "ALL" ,even in 1868, shows an unambiguous intent of inclusion. Since it was written after the war it could easily have been written to mention those born as slaves. It doesn't. I would not oppose a change to state that the parents prove that they have legal right to be in the country but at this time I don't see any wiggle room for granting the babies their citizenship.

[Thomas]

Cons: The 14th amendment doesn't really mean what it says

Libs: The 2nd amendment doesn't really mean what is says

In unison: It's too hard to create a new amendment!

[gotbeer]

You claim to be a fan of logic. Let's use some.

 

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

 

The use of the word "ALL" ,even in 1868, shows an unambiguous intent of inclusion. Since it was written after the war it could easily have been written to mention those born as slaves. It doesn't. I would not oppose a change to state that the parents prove that they have legal right to be in the country but at this time I don't see any wiggle room for granting the babies their citizenship.

 

Well, considering the US already ignores the second part of section 1.  (see drug asset seizures that CA is trying to fix, but law enforcement is opposed to)  Might as well ignore all of it.

[DowningRules]

Authorities can't/won't enforce "what it was intended for" they enforce the letter of the law.

 

The city of San Francisco and the State of Arizona beg to differ.  Which way would you like it to be?

[Jay]

The federal government won't even enforce our immigration laws.

[mtangelsfan]

Cons: The 14th amendment doesn't really mean what it says

Libs: The 2nd amendment doesn't really mean what is says

In unison: It's too hard to create a new amendment!

 

I am a con and I think all means all.  I would tell critics of that portion of the 14th amendment the same that I tell critics of the 2nd amendment.  If you don't like it, the constitution provides the opportunity to change it.