It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump: Get Rid of Birthright Citizenship

page: 3
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: charolais


Lindsey Graham was asked about it, and he said he didn't have a problem with it, and thought it would pass.

I personally find it obscene. We would have generations of displaced, countryless persons. A cruel thing to do to a baby.



I hate to sound overly sensational but history shows that the easiest way to take over a country without violence is by changing the demographic over time.

Hispanics have larger families, statistically, so combine that with the rate of illegal immigration and you can see the future landscape of the United States changing dramatically.



Except no. Something you are leaving out is that within a generation or two of moving here, most people, no matter where they come from end up fully Americanized. They don't have foreign accents, and many can only speak English.


I'm aware of all that but there are still cultural differences, religious leanings, voting preferences, etc. that affect the landscape.




posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: charolais

Well Donald Trump is a citizen of the United States because he was born here. And his ancestors obviously immigrated here because the only legitimate inhabitants of the U.S. are Native Americans.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
I get a chill down my spine whenever someone talks about changing the constitution. It doesn't sit well with me.


Same here.



I am certain our founding fathers never envisioned a time when people would be entering this country under the cover of darkness, at will on a daily basis, and birthing children solely for the purpose of gaining citizenship from a government run amok.


Read the informative post above. www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Answer
I'm aware of all that but there are still cultural differences, religious leanings, voting preferences, etc. that affect the landscape.


Yes, and we have cultural freedom, religious freedom and the freedom to vote how we please. We're ALL about freedom. Remember? Keeping people out to maintain the status quo is not what we need right now.

IMO, we could use some "landscaping" to clean up this mess.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer

As a previous poster already pointed out, we've gone through quite a few immigration scares throughout our short history as a country. Not ONCE has any immigration scare resulted in us losing our identity as Americans, so I HIGHLY doubt that this particular scare will result in anything different.

What you highlighted in your post sounds more like a political party problem and not so much a country problem.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   
I think this is a good idea. This is one of the main problems that cause illegal immigration on the massive scale we see today.

Illegals can come here, squeeze out a sprog and hey-presto their unlawful residency in this country is suddenly legitimized by their 'American' baby. It's bull# and blatant exploitation of the law to circumvent legal citizenship. This loophole needs to be closed.

I do despise illegal immigrants and I do think they should all be sent back. I am a LEGAL immigrant myself, from Scotland. It took me YEARS of red tape and expense to move here and to be allowed to work here, not to mention numerous trips back and forth across the pond to facilitate this.

Forgive me if I show no empathy toward maggots who sneak into this country and just magically have all the rights I worked my ass off to get.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80

originally posted by: Bluntone22
If the government would enforce the immigration laws we already have, there would not be an issue.
You can't have babies here if your not here to have one.


We don't have the ability to stop them from coming over full stop. The idea that we can close off 1500 some odd miles and have zero people get over is a pipe dream.



Can't we just stop most? Why should we roll out the red carpet?
And then give anybody hiring someone without a green card some prison time.
With no way to get a job they will not bother making the trip.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Great information and presented well.

However, I find one flaw in the interpretation as argued both then and now:


Accordingly, the text of the Citizenship Clause plainly guarantees birthright citizenship to the U.S.‐born children of all persons subject to U.S. sovereign authority and laws.


In this case sovereign authority is Federal law, as defined by the constitution, and the elected representatives sworn to uphold that law. The constitution of the United States does not apply to citizens of other nations, regardless of where they happen to be standing. Of course there are laws that are meant to address behavior and criminal activity. But that is not the law we are talking about here.

The language proposed by Senator Howard is one interpretation. I do not agree with his interpretation, nor do I believe our founding fathers would.

Can you honestly say that if George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were standing here today that they would be ok with the idea of people sneaking across the border in the middle of the night, having babies for the sole purpose of gaining citizenship regardless of their past or their intentions, and would approve of using taxpayer money to support those people?



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Do you think the founding fathers foresaw people taking automatic weapons into public buildings and mass-murdering people?

Should we change the second amendment to fix this oversight?


edit on 8/18/2015 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

That deflects my question but does not answer it.

No. I do not believe our founding fathers foresaw people using automatic weapons in public buildings to commit mass-murder. But I do believe that our founding fathers knew some people would break the law and they provided a means of dealing with those people.

Our founding fathers were smart enough to know: a) they will never change the behavior of criminals by attacking the tools they use, b) the best way to prevent murder is not to disarm the victims, c) the second amendment was second for a reason. It was only surpassed in importance by one other, and was placed second for the purpose of maintaining a means of defending the first.

In answer to your question, no, we should not change the constitution. There was no oversight. People kill other people. It has always been that way and probably always will be. The tools, methods, and motives may change, but the problem will always be there. It will not be legislated away. Legislation only works on people who obey the law. Criminals break the law. That is why we call them criminals. If you repeal the second amendment today, tomorrow there will be just as many criminals with guns as there are today. The only people who would abide by that decision, by definition, are the law abiding citizens - not the people shooting up movie theaters.


edit on 18-8-2015 by Vroomfondel because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
I agree with him on this one.


But it STILL has to pass your congress by 2/3......

one does not simply repeal a amendment.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum were all born in the USA but to parents that were not nationalized citizens. Or anchor babies if you like the term

Ted Cruz was born in Canada, his mother was a U.S. Citizen.

Maybe this is just a way to stifle his competitors



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: angeldoll

Wouldn't the country of their parents extend citizenship to the child automatically? If not, please refer to Ted Cruz.

I agree with Mr. Trump. One parent should be a citizen of the US.


But again it STILL has to pass through congress with a 2/3 majority...



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

That deflects my question but does not answer it.


My intent was not to deflect, but to compare the two situations.



No. I do not believe our founding fathers foresaw people using automatic weapons in public buildings to commit mass-murder. But I do believe that our founding fathers knew some people would break the law and they provided a means of dealing with those people.


I think the same thing about illegal immigration. Of course the writers of the 14th amendment foresaw it. They talked about it in depth. Senator Howard was THERE.


If you repeal the second amendment today, tomorrow there will be just as many criminals with guns as there are today.


And if we amended the 14th amendment, there would still be illegal immigration tomorrow.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Ah, but see, the "problem" with guns isn't the tool or the right to bear them, it's with how dark the heart of some people has become. Plus, it was meant to be broad, unchanged, and permanent, hence the "shall not be infringed," which is the only amendment that contains that language.

I agree that the 1st could use some more specificity--sure would save a lot of tax dollars concerning all of these appeals. Of course, we have SCOTUS rulings that guide how it can be applied, but then again, those ruling change flavors with the wind, so more specificity in the amendment wouldn't hurt. But then again, I think people need to quit being so effing sensitive to everything said or done before even considering updating the 1st amendment--if people could jettison political correctness, maybe they'd be worth the effort in updating the amendment.

Don't see that happening anytime soon...



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Vroomfondel



The constitution of the United States does not apply to citizens of other nations


That is not true. All people within the US, legal or not, have constitutional protections.
edit on 18-8-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Vroomfondel

Do you think the founding fathers foresaw people taking automatic weapons into public buildings and mass-murdering people?

Should we change the second amendment to fix this oversight?



Again, the problem isn't with the tool, it's with the human heart of the statistically negligible amount of people in our society that would ever do something like that. So, no, the framers were too intelligent to concern themselves with such a small amount of possible happening when considering such an important right that needed protecting from government.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   
So if we get rid of birthright citizenship then the only true citizens of this country would be about 5.2 million people.

Convenient on how and when the definition of legally came about. A country founded on hypocrisy probably deserves what it reaps.



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Here's a thought...withhold foreign aid to said countries until they fund the return of their illegal immigrants here in the U.S. That would negate cost concerns for us, and it would save us money in foreign aid.

And yes, I have a heart, and I know that sounds harsh, but if we're just talking dollars and cents, here...



posted on Aug, 18 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
So if we get rid of birthright citizenship then the only true citizens of this country would be about 5.2 million people.

Convenient on how and when the definition of legally came about. A country founded on hypocrisy probably deserves what it reaps.


You're really, really going to have to show your work on that math problem...




top topics



 
20
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join