d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > The Anchor Baby Problem With Illegals And The Law > A Bigger Rape Will Soon Happen
Prev123458Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 51,909
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Gold: 8,933.00
Jun 16 2016 08:52am
Quote (thesnipa @ Jun 16 2016 09:48am)
For 90 years the states had the right to decide who was and was not a citizen or alien within their boundaries, that changed in 1866. The fact that the constitution predates it is heavily undermined by the fact that the federal govt made no law regarding this. We have the laws he have because emancipated slaves for the ball rolling, appealing strictly to the constitution is a bit silly. Especially when the 14th amendment states clearly that anyone born here is a citizen and then qualifies in unclearly with "subject to the jurisdiction". What i mean to say is that the constitution explicitly states being born here, then less clearly states jurisdiction is a factor. This is pretty evident when you look at how it applies to Indians, the framer of the 14th amendment himself made it clear he had no intent on extending citizenship rights to indians born on tribal lands in the debates that followed.

IMO put it back on the states, this is an issue that is far more problematic in some regions than others. Let Texas decide how they want to deal with an abundance of anchor babies and Minnesota decide how they want to deal with their by comparison few anchor babies.


The clause says AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Slaves were not subjects of a foreign power.
Member
Posts: 57,901
Joined: Dec 3 2008
Gold: 285.00
Jun 16 2016 10:02am
Quote (Santara @ Jun 16 2016 09:52am)
The clause says AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Slaves were not subjects of a foreign power.


Something about having arms for a well regulated militia.

I love interpretations.

Good thing we have a SCOTUS.
Member
Posts: 64,656
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
Jun 16 2016 10:06am
Quote (Skinned @ Jun 16 2016 10:02am)
Something about having arms for a well regulated militia.

I love interpretations.

Good thing we have a SCOTUS.


Yeah, I always think that's so weird that the second amendment is pretty explicit about the right of the people to bear arms resting on a well regulated militia being NECESSARY to the security of a free state. I haven't seen anybody even suggest that in my lifetime, seems it's really not necessary :X
Member
Posts: 33,452
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,617.52
Jun 16 2016 10:30am
It would greatly benefit the national IQ and household income rate to make this change.

I would specifically suggest that if they pay for the birth at the hospital, they can become a citizen. If not, they have to go.

Under a more conservative supreme court they should reconsider the right.
Member
Posts: 32,103
Joined: Dec 29 2009
Gold: 0.00
Jun 16 2016 10:37am
Quote (Thor123422 @ Jun 16 2016 11:06am)
Yeah, I always think that's so weird that the second amendment is pretty explicit about the right of the people to bear arms resting on a well regulated militia being NECESSARY to the security of a free state. I haven't seen anybody even suggest that in my lifetime, seems it's really not necessary :X


You have to consider what comprised the "well-regulated militia" back in that day. It was pretty much every able-bodied man, and said men were expected to provide their own arms when called to service. As such, the right rests on the individual, in order to create said militia.
Member
Posts: 64,656
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
Jun 16 2016 10:39am
Quote (Surfpunk @ Jun 16 2016 10:37am)
You have to consider what comprised the "well-regulated militia" back in that day. It was pretty much every able-bodied man, and said men were expected to provide their own arms when called to service. As such, the right rests on the individual, in order to create said militia.


I understand that, but it doesn't really matter since a civilian militia hasn't been necessary to our security since even before WWII
Member
Posts: 51,909
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Gold: 8,933.00
Jun 16 2016 10:40am
Quote (Skinned @ Jun 16 2016 11:02am)
Something about having arms for a well regulated militia.

I love interpretations.

Good thing we have a SCOTUS.


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Part A = clause. A statement of purpose. The right is specifically spelled out after the comma. ezpk

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.

You can't skip this step, because they used the word AND. It does not say "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside," which is exactly how YOU are interpreting it.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Jun 16 2016 11:06am)
Yeah, I always think that's so weird that the second amendment is pretty explicit about the right of the people to bear arms resting on a well regulated militia being NECESSARY to the security of a free state. I haven't seen anybody even suggest that in my lifetime, seems it's really not necessary :X


Because the amendment doesn't say it's the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, it says the right of the people.
Member
Posts: 64,656
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
Jun 16 2016 10:41am
Quote (Santara @ Jun 16 2016 10:40am)

Because the amendment doesn't say it's the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, it says the right of the people.


Only if the militia is necessary to the security of a free state, which it isn't.
Member
Posts: 51,909
Joined: Jan 3 2009
Gold: 8,933.00
Jun 16 2016 11:10am
Quote (Thor123422 @ Jun 16 2016 11:41am)
Only if the militia is necessary to the security of a free state, which it isn't.


"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is a statement of fact. It doesn't say "if the security of a free state is necessary."
Member
Posts: 65,872
Joined: May 17 2005
Gold: 17,384.69
Jun 16 2016 11:29am
Quote (Santara @ 16 Jun 2016 18:10)
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is a statement of fact. It doesn't say "if the security of a free state is necessary."


oh lol

Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev123458Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll