Republicans trying to burn the Constitution and disgusted by immigrants

Off the top of my head I know for a fact that people born in Australia and Canada no matter where there parents are from are automatically citizens.

 

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

 

Really? Because it's based on English common law, which was highly influential in the formation of laws in the US. Do you just make up your own interpretations of the Constitution as you see fit?

From our friend Wiki:

Birthright citizenship, as with much United States law, has its roots in English common law.[14] Calvin’s Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608), was particularly important as it established that under English common law “a person's status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth--a person born within the king's dominion owed allegiance to the sovereign, and in turn, was entitled to the king's protection."[15] This same principle was adopted by the newly formed United States, as stated by Supreme Court Justice Noah Haynes Swayne: "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country…since as before the Revolution." United States v. Rhodes, 27 Fed. Cas. 785 (1866).

As usual, you're not entitled to make up your own facts.

 

What are some other things from the 1860s which are set in stone?

 

Do you propose changing the constitution in this case?

 

Not surprisingly, the discussion went completely over your head.

 

I don't really see a problem with ceasing to grant citizenship to the babies just because they are born here. Illegally crossing the border than having a baby to give them citizenship I think is a problem. The children of legal immigrants born in America should be citizens.

 

Among other things, this caught my eye:

So you're saying that just because it was done, it can't or shouldn't be undone? Check out the 18th and 21st Amendments (Prohibition and it's Repeal).

Influence from another century (make that two centuries) might should properly fall away. Let's compare immigration then to immigration now.

I think it is certainly worthy of debate and discussion... which you seem to want to stifle.

 

Why now giddy? 3 months before the midterms?

 

yeah, i thought the same thing when i read major's earlier post in this thread which read:

 

I have no political slant; anything should be eligible for discussion anytime. I think I was mostly responding to some in this thread who want to stifle the debate. For some reason they see this issue as untouchable.

 

and you can't even point them out correctly.

 

Then why did he want to stifle me? He said it went completely over my head. I don't think it did. If circumstances change, some things might need to change. The country is no longer in the situation of soliciting a population increase.

 

Do you even realize how insanely, impossibly stupid this sentence is?

 

No I don't. Tell me, please. We don't even have a King here in the good ole USA...

 

saying you don't get something is not the same as stifling. especially when said person openly advocates discussion on the issue.

 

Maybe he should practice what he preaches?

Okay, we'll try it your way: what did I not get?

 

Look specifically at what I was replying to. Read it. Read it again. Read it a 3rd time if necessary. I was specifically responding to the idea of whether or not the *intent* of the 14th Amendment was birthright citizenship or not. OddsOn claimed it wasn't because he doesn't want it to be. I pointed out how stupidly wrong that was. That's it.

It had ZERO to do with whether birthright citizenship should exist today.

Here's another instance where reading comprehension would be helpful. My very first sentence in this thread:

I agree with you that there's nothing wrong with discussing the issue.

 

i'm pretty sure you wouldn't understand it. anyway, i was just pointing out how stupid you sounded accusing someone who openly said there is nothing wrong with discussing the issue as trying to stifle debate on the issue.

major's smarter than me, so i'll let him show you how your wrong. hint: it has to do with his response to oddson's assertion that the 14th amendment didn't legalize anchor babies when the foundation of our laws come from english law that recognized "anchor babies" as legal citizens.

 

I said nothing about the 14th Amendment.

I responded to this:

Birthright citizenship, as with much United States law, has its roots in English common law.[14] Calvin’s Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608), was particularly important as it established that under English common law “a person's status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth--a person born within the king's dominion owed allegiance to the sovereign, and in turn, was entitled to the king's protection."[15] This same principle was adopted by the newly formed United States, as stated by Supreme Court Justice Noah Haynes Swayne: "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural- born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country…since as before the Revolution." United States v. Rhodes, 27 Fed. Cas. 785 (1866)...

which was anchored in some kind of court decision from 1866 thus my reference to the 1860s.