Trump threatens to Nullify the 14th Amendment

[Vassenor]

That and the army is trained not to shot into civilian crowds. And yes they are still civilians even if they riot.

This is an opinion not a fact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNoOytQDFXI

You know what is a fact? The USA is not Israel.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Did you know you can stop riots without firing indiscriminately into crowds?

the idf doesn't "fire indiscriminately" into palestinian rioters, that's the last resort.

If it's a "last resort", that means that they do occasionally do it.

[Trumptonium1]

This is an opinion not a fact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNoOytQDFXI

This is an opinion not a fact.

I never said it is.

This is an opinion not a fact.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNoOytQDFXI

You know what is a fact? The USA is not Israel.

Mother of God ... did we all just witness Vassenor saying something that is actually true?

Behold, plebeians! For this happens once a Halley's.

the idf doesn't "fire indiscriminately" into palestinian rioters, that's the last resort.

If it's a "last resort", that means that they do occasionally do it.

If they're effectively forced to do so yeah, just like we 'occasionally' bomb people with nuclear weapons as a last resort.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

If it's a "last resort", that means that they do occasionally do it.

If they're effectively forced to do so yeah, just like we 'occasionally' bomb people with nuclear weapons as a last resort.

Would it kill you to stop trying to argue that the US and Israel are the same country with the same problems?
Israel's policies are built around a nation that has to fight off invasion from all their neighbors. Last I checked, the last time the US fought any of its neighbors was in the 19th century. (And before you try to argue that illegal immigration constitutes an invasion - because, let's be honest, that's what you want to do - point me to the heavily armed, organized military force that's currently swarming over our border on behalf of the Mexican government, because I don't seem to be finding any evidence of one existing.)

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

This is an opinion not a fact.

I never said it is.

Then what is your point?

[Ifreann]

I never said it is.

Then what is your point?

Making people mad on the internet.

[The USA of America]

I see the concern with setting a dangerous precedent regarding to presidents being able to change amendments. But beside that point.

Can anyone here give a good reason why the 14th amendment should even still exist? I mean, it seems pretty absurd when you really start to think about the amendment itself.

I strongly disagree with you, the 14th amendment is more than just about the legal or illegal immigration issue of Birth Right Citzenship, but I do think and support amending it which is very hard to do under the constitution, to declare that it does not grant citizenship to future kids of illegal persons born on US soil, and many of us, millions of legal Americans think that it does not grant kids of illegal persons born on US soil birth right citizenship, and that it has been misinterpreted and applied in the opposite manner for many years.

Please don't tell us that you are 100 % right on any issues and we are 100 % wrong, that is why we have the current US Supreme Court Justices from both the right and the left to interpret the US constitution, like Justices Brett Kavanaugh on the right, and RBG on the left, apart from that yes you have a right to tell us anything you want and a right to post it to us, I have never argued that point, except to point out you should not tell us that since that is our different political points of view, and we have the current US Supreme Court Justices to interpret the US Constitution, and the right only has a majority of one, so the US Supreme Court can decide against the right if it ever takes up the issue of the right, in the US Supreme Court anything can happen, certain US Supreme Court Justices on the right and left have surprised us all at one time or another.

Please don't tell us that you are 100 % right on any issues and we are 100 % wrong, I don't even do that on Cuba my pet issue on NS, of which I am an expert on for obvious reasons, I accept their posts, argue my post and leave at that, I do say on that Cuba issue, I have not made any of this up, and you still have a right to disagree with me and post it to me, that is what I say on the Cuba issue, not that you all are 100 % wrong and I am 100 % right, that would not be right of me to say, and yes every one has a right to say whatever they want and to post it to me and all of us, as long as we are respectful to others and follow all NS rules.

[Straite]

That isn't a punishment. We're talking about policies here, nothing is absolute. I've failed to see where the benefits to the 14th amendment existing are pointed out here.

With birthright citizenship the children of people living in my country illegally, beneath the system & unvetted, are able to receive welfare benefits out of the pockets of US citizens. If anything the 14th promotes illegal migration, which in that case, promotes pregnant woman to embark on an awfully treacherous journey. My heart goes out to anyone looking for a better life, but sneaking in is not the way.

A child being born in the US, never having lived anywhere else, going to US schools, learning English, and then being sent abroad because 'they are not citizens because their parents came here illegally' is not a punishment for the crimes of their parents? You are literally saying 'they cannot be citizens because their parents did something bad'. That is punishing children for the crimes of their parents. Illegality isn't a curse of the blood, for god's sake. A child born from parents in the US illegally are just children, like any other child. When growing up, they will pay taxes, work for the US economy and provide vital labour, just like any other American. When they become citizens, they become Americans, after all. There is no 'money going into welfare from Americans' since they are Americans themselves.

Yes, with birthright citizenship American citizens can receive benefits paid for from the taxes of other citizens. That is true for all Americans, and it is true for children whose parents were not US citizens. I don't see what is so inherently wrong about these children that their well-being is a stain on the US.

Tell me this: why should a child, born in the US, be denied citizenship as some sort of policy tool? This citizenship is theirs, by right. You will have to give reasons why taking away that right is justified. Why is giving these kids, who have never been outside of the US, citizenship so appalling?

Firstly, the statistics are leaned a bit differently than your rhetoric suggests. https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Welfare-Use ... Households

".The average household headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) costs taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare benefits, which is 41 percent higher than the $4,431 received by the average native household." "Immigrant households consume more cash, food, and Medicaid dollars than native households, while housing costs are roughly the same for both groups."

I disagree with your initial points. It isn't 'being denied owed citizenship' if the policy is changed. Fact is, in Germany if a foreigner is passing through & gives birth. It's still a child of a foreigner. You're saying it in a way like it's an absolute, when it isn't. So your moralistic viewpoint is highjacked when you apply the scenario of a different policy. Which would be you asking the question: "Why are foreigners not considered Americans?" Which is rhetorical.

On the view of application of a different policy. I believe that everyone who is currently a citizen should stay a citizen. But yes, for future people who illegally sneak into the country & have a baby. The baby should be kicked out with the parents. Unless you think it would be better to keep the baby here alone & remove only the parents?

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

A child being born in the US, never having lived anywhere else, going to US schools, learning English, and then being sent abroad because 'they are not citizens because their parents came here illegally' is not a punishment for the crimes of their parents? You are literally saying 'they cannot be citizens because their parents did something bad'. That is punishing children for the crimes of their parents. Illegality isn't a curse of the blood, for god's sake. A child born from parents in the US illegally are just children, like any other child. When growing up, they will pay taxes, work for the US economy and provide vital labour, just like any other American. When they become citizens, they become Americans, after all. There is no 'money going into welfare from Americans' since they are Americans themselves.

Yes, with birthright citizenship American citizens can receive benefits paid for from the taxes of other citizens. That is true for all Americans, and it is true for children whose parents were not US citizens. I don't see what is so inherently wrong about these children that their well-being is a stain on the US.

Tell me this: why should a child, born in the US, be denied citizenship as some sort of policy tool? This citizenship is theirs, by right. You will have to give reasons why taking away that right is justified. Why is giving these kids, who have never been outside of the US, citizenship so appalling?

Firstly, the statistics are leaned a bit differently than your rhetoric suggests. https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Welfare-Use ... Households

".The average household headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) costs taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare benefits, which is 41 percent higher than the $4,431 received by the average native household." "Immigrant households consume more cash, food, and Medicaid dollars than native households, while housing costs are roughly the same for both groups."

I disagree with your initial points. It isn't 'being denied owed citizenship' if the policy is changed. Fact is, in Germany if a foreigner is passing through & gives birth. It's still a child of a foreigner. You're saying it in a way like it's an absolute, when it isn't. So your moralistic viewpoint is highjacked when you apply the scenario of a different policy. Which would be you asking the question: "Why are foreigners not considered Americans?" Which is rhetorical.

On the view of application of a different policy. I believe that everyone who is currently a citizen should stay a citizen. But yes, for future people who illegally sneak into the country & have a baby. The baby should be kicked out with the parents. Unless you think it would be better to keep the baby here alone & remove only the parents?

Perhaps some of us think that removing people from the US and sending them to a country that they probably haven't even visited before is unnecessary? Just a thought?

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

A child being born in the US, never having lived anywhere else, going to US schools, learning English, and then being sent abroad because 'they are not citizens because their parents came here illegally' is not a punishment for the crimes of their parents? You are literally saying 'they cannot be citizens because their parents did something bad'. That is punishing children for the crimes of their parents. Illegality isn't a curse of the blood, for god's sake. A child born from parents in the US illegally are just children, like any other child. When growing up, they will pay taxes, work for the US economy and provide vital labour, just like any other American. When they become citizens, they become Americans, after all. There is no 'money going into welfare from Americans' since they are Americans themselves.

Yes, with birthright citizenship American citizens can receive benefits paid for from the taxes of other citizens. That is true for all Americans, and it is true for children whose parents were not US citizens. I don't see what is so inherently wrong about these children that their well-being is a stain on the US.

Tell me this: why should a child, born in the US, be denied citizenship as some sort of policy tool? This citizenship is theirs, by right. You will have to give reasons why taking away that right is justified. Why is giving these kids, who have never been outside of the US, citizenship so appalling?

Firstly, the statistics are leaned a bit differently than your rhetoric suggests. https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Welfare-Use ... Households

".The average household headed by an immigrant (legal or illegal) costs taxpayers $6,234 in federal welfare benefits, which is 41 percent higher than the $4,431 received by the average native household." "Immigrant households consume more cash, food, and Medicaid dollars than native households, while housing costs are roughly the same for both groups."

I disagree with your initial points. It isn't 'being denied owed citizenship' if the policy is changed. Fact is, in Germany if a foreigner is passing through & gives birth. It's still a child of a foreigner. You're saying it in a way like it's an absolute, when it isn't. So your moralistic viewpoint is highjacked when you apply the scenario of a different policy. Which would be you asking the question: "Why are foreigners not considered Americans?" Which is rhetorical.

On the view of application of a different policy. I believe that everyone who is currently a citizen should stay a citizen. But yes, for future people who illegally sneak into the country & have a baby. The baby should be kicked out with the parents. Unless you think it would be better to keep the baby here alone & remove only the parents?

From the wiki page of the Centre for Immigration Studies:

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) is a non-partisan,[3] non-profit organization and think tank[4] "that favors far lower immigration numbers and produces research to further those views."

and

"Reports published by CIS have been disputed by scholars on immigration, fact-checkers such as PolitiFact, FactCheck.Org, Washington Post, Snopes, CNN and NBC News, and immigration-research organizations."

So, excuse me for not taking the research of this clearly biased group into account. Their own mission statement is that they find research to support their opinions, not base their opinions on the facts they find. That is a textbook case of bias. Even if it were true, one would also have to factor in how much every household brings in in taxes. If such a family would pay 8,000 dollars per year in taxes, then it would still be revenue-creating.

As for Germany: I disagree with any nation that does not grant birthright citizenship. Hell, I disagree with policies that remove undocumented children which have spent a significant amount of time in a country. I don't see how 'Germany does it this way' has anything to do with the discussion at hand. I think they are wrong too, for the same reasons. There are no good reasons to kick them out, and kicking them out would create unjust cases of kids having to 'return' to a country they have never been to. Kids that would have been American under current constitutional law.

As for the final part: no, there is another solution: keep the parents as well. If they commit a violent crime you can always kick them out regardless, but as long as they are law-abiding residents of the US, there is no reason not to let them stay.

I will ask you again: what are good reasons to kick out immigrants? They do not cost money, they grow the economy, they are overall less likely to commit crime... Immigrants are usually model citizens.

[Page]

I disagree with your initial points. It isn't 'being denied owed citizenship' if the policy is changed. Fact is, in Germany if a foreigner is passing through & gives birth. It's still a child of a foreigner. You're saying it in a way like it's an absolute, when it isn't. So your moralistic viewpoint is highjacked when you apply the scenario of a different policy. Which would be you asking the question: "Why are foreigners not considered Americans?" Which is rhetorical.

On the view of application of a different policy. I believe that everyone who is currently a citizen should stay a citizen. But yes, for future people who illegally sneak into the country & have a baby. The baby should be kicked out with the parents. Unless you think it would be better to keep the baby here alone & remove only the parents?

Many countries do not have birthright citizenship, but America does, and there is a huge difference between not having a right in the first place and revoking a right. For the sake of a comparison: Many countries don't have marriage equality, which is no surprise since a hetero-normative concept of marriage had existed in most societies for a very long time. But if the US, Canada, or some other country that has marriage equality then decided to revoke it, that would be an act of hostility against the people.

To revoke what has been an inalienable right for more than 150 hours would be a disgrace. It takes time and effort to move forward, but it's never acceptable to go backward.

Another thing I'd note is that Israel is doing just fine allowing any Jew to claim citizenship if they want it, and America has not suffered for birthright citizenship. What reason is there to end it? So undocumented families can be more easily expelled from the country? How is that worth it?

[Auristania]

Ius Soli versus Ius Sanguinis = Law of Soil versus Law of Blood = Citizenship by virtue of being born in the Territory versus Citizenship by virtue of citizen Parents. The Latin words are emotionally neutral.

Birthright Citizenship is a very nice emotionally charged word invented by the Soilistas.

14th Amendment was passed by Senate, Congress, States etc because the Original Constitution decreed Slavery and was amended to abolish Slavery by following the whole palaver of amending.

Slavery could be brought back with a new Amendment passed by Senate, Congress, States etc. But who needs to wait that long? Presidential Decree abolishes the Constitution and SCOTUS is packed with slathering Trumpite minions saying Yasser Masser!

[Vassenor]

Ius Soli versus Ius Sanguinis = Law of Soil versus Law of Blood = Citizenship by virtue of being born in the Territory versus Citizenship by virtue of citizen Parents. The Latin words are emotionally neutral.

Birthright Citizenship is a very nice emotionally charged word invented by the Soilistas.

14th Amendment was passed by Senate, Congress, States etc because the Original Constitution decreed Slavery and was amended to abolish Slavery by following the whole palaver of amending.

Slavery could be brought back with a new Amendment passed by Senate, Congress, States etc. But who needs to wait that long? Presidential Decree abolishes the Constitution and SCOTUS is packed with slathering Trumpite minions saying Yasser Masser!

Slavery is 13th though.

[Dark Socialism]

Ius Soli versus Ius Sanguinis = Law of Soil versus Law of Blood = Citizenship by virtue of being born in the Territory versus Citizenship by virtue of citizen Parents. The Latin words are emotionally neutral.

Birthright Citizenship is a very nice emotionally charged word invented by the Soilistas.

14th Amendment was passed by Senate, Congress, States etc because the Original Constitution decreed Slavery and was amended to abolish Slavery by following the whole palaver of amending.

Slavery could be brought back with a new Amendment passed by Senate, Congress, States etc. But who needs to wait that long? Presidential Decree abolishes the Constitution and SCOTUS is packed with slathering Trumpite minions saying Yasser Masser!

Ideal scenario

[Vassenor]

Ius Soli versus Ius Sanguinis = Law of Soil versus Law of Blood = Citizenship by virtue of being born in the Territory versus Citizenship by virtue of citizen Parents. The Latin words are emotionally neutral.

Birthright Citizenship is a very nice emotionally charged word invented by the Soilistas.

14th Amendment was passed by Senate, Congress, States etc because the Original Constitution decreed Slavery and was amended to abolish Slavery by following the whole palaver of amending.

Slavery could be brought back with a new Amendment passed by Senate, Congress, States etc. But who needs to wait that long? Presidential Decree abolishes the Constitution and SCOTUS is packed with slathering Trumpite minions saying Yasser Masser!

Ideal scenario

What's ideal about reinstituting the ability to keep human beings as property?

[Holy Tedalonia]

Ius Soli versus Ius Sanguinis = Law of Soil versus Law of Blood = Citizenship by virtue of being born in the Territory versus Citizenship by virtue of citizen Parents. The Latin words are emotionally neutral.

Birthright Citizenship is a very nice emotionally charged word invented by the Soilistas.

14th Amendment was passed by Senate, Congress, States etc because the Original Constitution decreed Slavery and was amended to abolish Slavery by following the whole palaver of amending.

Slavery could be brought back with a new Amendment passed by Senate, Congress, States etc. But who needs to wait that long? Presidential Decree abolishes the Constitution and SCOTUS is packed with slathering Trumpite minions saying Yasser Masser!

Slavery is 13th though.

13, 14, and 15, pretty much covers one topic, and that’s slavery. 13 abolishes, 14 provides citizenship, and 15 provides the right to vote. All made by the victors of the civil war.

[Valgora]

Slavery is 13th though.

13, 14, and 15, pretty much covers one topic, and that’s slavery. 13 abolishes, 14 provides citizenship, and 15 provides the right to vote. All made by the victors of the civil war.

The 13th specifically deals with slavery and the 15th also was made to specifically deal with slaver but goes slightly too far to say it only covers one topic.
The 14th goes too far to simply say it pretty much covers only the topic of slavery.

[Holy Tedalonia]

13, 14, and 15, pretty much covers one topic, and that’s slavery. 13 abolishes, 14 provides citizenship, and 15 provides the right to vote. All made by the victors of the civil war.

The 13th specifically deals with slavery and the 15th also was made to specifically deal with slaver but goes slightly too far to say it only covers one topic.
The 14th goes too far to simply say it pretty much covers only the topic of slavery.

I mean, I’m just generalizing here, although the 14th amendment only other reason is it makes citizenship simplistic, remember this is a time before bureaucracy truly became the giants they are today. With a efficient bereaucracy, it would be nice to improve how one receives citizenship, and remove loopholes.

[Rojava Free State]

Trump when he next nullifies the first amendment and bans all news that doesn't give him enough love, aka most of the news media in america and most americans.
"You know they used to tell me you needed a convention to pass a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't. They said you can just do it with an executive order."

[Len Hyet]

Trump when he next nullifies the first amendment and bans all news that doesn't give him enough love, aka most of the news media in america and most americans.
"You know they used to tell me you needed a convention to pass a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't. They said you can just do it with an executive order."

'member when Republicans would've shat a brick if the President said he could change the Constitution with an executive order?

I 'member

[Phoenicaea]

I' m with my eyes running nowhere. most of persons here live in Usa, it seems to me, the place where.. the grand-nephew of the slave could be senator, eccetera.

I don t live in a place where the criterium is the same, and you would renounce at it because of the thrill in living in a place where you need a well-weighted dinasty to run a backery?

with all licences and well placed friends and parents, as in the sit-coms.

you shouldn t let the lessers to rumour with that this way, you should ignore them as long as you are still able and sane. after, it will be too late.

[Salandriagado]

Let's be honest here. This whole "build the wall, deport the illegals" spiel is just the one percent trying to convince the working poor to blame a subset of the working poor for the fact they're all poor instead of realising the reason they're all poor is due to vast income inequality and resource price inflation in combination with wage stagnation.

The existence of another poor person is not why you're poor. It's because the people who control everything refuse to increase your wages.

Considering that they do take jobs and cost us billions of dollars every fucking year, yes, illegals are holding other poor people back.

By "cost us billions of dollars", you mean "make a net contribution", and by "take jobs", you mean "fill important jobs that Americans are not willing to fill".

[Petrasylvania]

Considering that they do take jobs and cost us billions of dollars every fucking year, yes, illegals are holding other poor people back.

By "cost us billions of dollars", you mean "make a net contribution", and by "take jobs", you mean "fill important jobs that Americans are not willing to fill".

Don't be silly! If crop picking paid like a white collar job then Real Americans™ will flock to the farms trying to get a job!

[Phoenicaea]

Trump when he next nullifies the first amendment and bans all news that doesn't give him enough love, aka most of the news media in america and most americans.
"You know they used to tell me you needed a convention to pass a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't. They said you can just do it with an executive order."