The 14th Amendment had two purposes. First, of course, was to deal with slaves and the children of slaves, who were Constitutionally considered chattel up to 1865. A second reason, was those other non-Americans, Native Americans. The US was still a real estate project in the 19th century, and yes, we were still pushing west and north and south. As most immigrants were from Europe, they were not seen as threats (much). You had these debates over whether Italians were “white”, or how to deal with the Irish problem, but eventually, you know, same race deal. The Chinese, not so much. It wasn’t until 1940 that Native Americans, the object of e.g. Andrew Jackson’s genocides, were treated as citizens.
So I’d say the 14th amendment provides a stop gap, but not a clear basis for a regularized immigration process. As a result the US has massive informal migration that fosters exploitation and even human trafficking. It takes us back to the chattel status of people pre-Civil War, and that’s stupid.
It starts with this guy, this guy and the notion that black slaves or freedmen (edit) didn’t have any rights that a white man needed to respect. The rather unusual thing about the 14th was that it was proposed on account that the ‘Radical Republicans’ (1.0) were afraid that any civil rights statute could get struck down in the courts.
I believe that birthright citizenship is preferable to the alternative, but there are some places where it has been problematic. I don’t have a full argument to give to you, but I see it as the preferable form regarding citizenship as opposed to denying anyone who is born on American soil citizenship.
Basically, what I’m saying is that I do see some flaws in birthright citizenship, but those are far outweighed by both the benefits of it and the negatives of other forms of citizenship practiced by other countries.
And, no, they don’t have any idea of the history of birthright citizenship.
i’m not a psychologist, but it seems to me that the image in the mirror is likely the person they dislike, and they manifest that by attacking everyone else as inadequate in this or that way.
ITYM “the US was still a colonization project in the 19th century” – the borders of the nation were not preordained, and the scramble westward was not really different from how Europeans stuck their flags into the ground elsewhere. The irony there being that colonization requires settlers, and settlers were usually not long off the boat.
The rule of law means that 1) everyone is treated fairly 2) there are rules that all must obey and 3) we have a plan for immigration. The US already naturalizes close to 1,000,000 per year. You want more? You want less? Change the quotas.
We need a system which works for US CITIZENS as well as those who want to come here. As it stands, illegals take jobs from US citizens. In addition, we have a system of temporary visas (H-1B, J-1, L-1, F-1, O-1, B-1, EB-5, OPT) which allows persons to work here, which further displaces US workers and gives a preference to foreign workers. For instance, J-1 workers can be hired so that you do not pay certain taxes for their employment, making it much cheaper to hire the foreign scab over the US worker.
We need an immigration system which favors the US citizen. Others can be naturalized in a systematic and appropriate process such as we have today.
However, as Barbara Jordan said in the 1995 “Report the Jordan Commission on Immigration” (issued under Bill Clinton by Barbara Jordan as chair), illegals must be deported.
Absolutely correct. The 14th Amendment should have had a time limit. It performed a vital function in 1865. That function has been done, and is over. We can now go to a more sensible system of citizenship by parentage.
There are hundreds of thousands of citizens who are created by the choice of mothers who come here to have babies. Later those babies move here, and due to our immigration system, the parent then has a priority for immigration. This makes no sense.
There are entire industries in CA and other western states bringing in Chinese women who pay vast sums to have the baby on US soil. None of this money goes to the hospitals - the women pretend to be poor, and go on indigent care. That means that you, the health care consumer and legitimate insurance consumer, is paying for this immigration fraud. In turn, your insurance costs more to you. It is a direct cost to the US insurance consumer.
Correct. Note, however, that the former slaves for which the 14th was written have been citizens since 1868. In point of fact, they are all dead now. There are no current persons for which the Amendment provides redress. The situation is done. The Amendment can be modified without harming any current citizen. It should be modified to prevent the FUTURE ABUSE. That is what is needed.
Okay if you thought Ben Carson was a genus that comment should put an end to any notion that he possess any knowledge of US history. Considering the origin of the 14th amendment that converted Dr. Ben from 3/5 of a person to a whole person and a US citizen with equal protections under US law. There are so many so called minority genuses on the right take for example Clarence Thomas who can sometimes be mistaken for Clayton Bigsby.
Carson has a MD, not a PhD. Doctorates are granted based on very narrow fields of study. Yes, Carson is an idiot when it comes to the Constitution and history.
But the odd thing is, Carson HAS NOT got his. Without birthright citizenship, how does he prove he is a US citizen, eligible to vote (much less be president)? A birth certificate won’t do it. What else ya got? Parents were citizens? Grandparents? How far back do we go?
Does he even understand why there is a 14th amendment? He needs to look in the mirror and realize that as a black man, if he is descended from freed slaves, his ass would have been born in Africa without it.
