Republicans Push To Revise 14th Amendment

[johnny karate]

Probably not, or they wouldn't be doing it in the first place. But it was suggested above that maybe this was just to fire up the torch and pitchfork crowd for the November elections, and they never expected it to get very far. That doesn't sound too far off.

So while in a technical sense, the proponents for changing/revoking the 14th amendment have legal footing, there is an obvious hypocrisy at work here.

I think that, in light of this hypocrisy, it's the motives of these people - despite how much they may be following the letter of the law - that myself and others find disturbing.

 

[pipelineaudio]

" Approximately 88,000 legal immigrant parents of US citizen children have been deported in the past ten years for what it described"'

wiki

Quad cited a hundred thousand. Stop moving the goalposts.

I'm still at the original goalpost: name one

 

[Malerin]

So while in a technical sense, the proponents for changing/revoking the 14th amendment have legal footing, there is an obvious hypocrisy at work here.

I think that, in light of this hypocrisy, it's the motives of these people - despite how much they may be following the letter of the law - that myself and others find disturbing.

I think quite a few are serious about it.

This is not exactly extremism we're talking about. The UK, France and Germany do not grant automatic citizenship solely on the basis of being born within their borders.

 

[GlennB]

I think quite a few are serious about it.

This is not exactly extremism we're talking about. The UK, France and Germany do not grant automatic citizenship solely on the basis of being born within their borders.

Quite right too. If my wife had been passing through the USA and had happened to give birth to one of our kids there prematurely, I'd have said it was mighty presumptuous of the USA to confer citizenship on our child, without so much as a 'by your leave'.

The 14th suffers from the same faults as the 2nd (and maybe others). It applied nicely to those times perhaps, not these.

 

[Region Rat]

Quite right too. If my wife had been passing through the USA and had happened to give birth to one of our kids there prematurely, I'd have said it was mighty presumptuous of the USA to confer citizenship on our child, without so much as a 'by your leave'.

The 14th suffers from the same faults as the 2nd (and maybe others). It applied nicely to those times perhaps, not these.

How can you say that? US citizenship is the ultimate prize sought out by people worldwide.

Why do you hate your child?

 

[eeyore1954]

So while in a technical sense, the proponents for changing/revoking the 14th amendment have legal footing, there is an obvious hypocrisy at work here.

I think that, in light of this hypocrisy, it's the motives of these people - despite how much they may be following the letter of the law - that myself and others find disturbing.

You know the motives? I on the other hand believe they think it should be changed. I don't see any obvious hypocrisy.

 

[eeyore1954]

I think quite a few are serious about it.

This is not exactly extremism we're talking about. The UK, France and Germany do not grant automatic citizenship solely on the basis of being born within their borders.

Exactly.

What other countries do grant automatic citizenship. I believe it is not many so why is it such a terrible thing to want to reconsider this. I am pretty sure that close to 60% of Americans do not agree with that part of the amendment so why is it unreasonable to think the people who are trying to change it think they have a chance.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

We also don't believe in rewarding a child for crimes committed by his parents either.

What reward? A child born in the US is already a US citizen.

Yes, under the Fourteenth Amendment as it currently stands, the child is a citizen, because he was born in the United States. But he was only born in the United States because his parents committed a crime (viz. illegally entering the United States when they had no right to be here). If the parents had not committed this crime, then the child would not have any claim to U.S. citizenship.

Surely, there are many children born in Mexico that would like to be U.S. citizens, but to whom this privilege is not extended. Why should this privilege then be extended to the child of criminals?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

So people arguing that we should change and/or revoke the 14th amendment reject the argument that Constitutional rights are sacred merely because they are enumerated in the Constitution, right?

In other words, we can stop all this nonsense about "the right to bear arms" and talk seriously about a ban on guns in the U.S.

Yes, you certainly can, as long as you can get the necessary support to pass a new Amendment to the Constitution to overturn the Second Amendment.

Anything in the Constitution can be overturned, by adding a new Amendment. This is inherent in the design of the Constitution, along with a process intended to guarantee that this will not be done lightly.

The Fourteenth Amendment itself was exactly such a change to the Constitution.

And just because a change has been made to the Constitution doesn't mean that that change cannot later be altered or completely undone. See the Eighteenth and Twenty-First Amendments.

 

[SezMe]

Some data.

Parkland Memorial Hospital [in Texas]delivers more of those babies than any other hospital in the state. Last year at Parkland, 11,071 babies were born to women who were noncitizens, about 74 percent of total deliveries. Most of these women are believed to be in the country illegally.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Basically, you're right. We have the ability to amend the constitution. There is absolutely nothing wrong with doing so. It is not an underhanded trick of some type.

An amendment can be proposed that will eliminate the right to bear arms.

However, that has as much chance of passing as do the changes to the 14th.

The Amendment process is, by design, nontrivial and intended to prevent the Constitution from being amended unless there is overwhelming public support for doing so.

As it stands, the solid majority of Americans agree with the Second Amendment, so the probability of getting an Amendment passed to overturn it is rather close to zero.

However, there seems to be a very strong body of public sentiment against the automatic granting of citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. An Amendment to change this, it seems, would have a reasonable chance of passing.

 

[johnny karate]

I think quite a few are serious about it.

This is not exactly extremism we're talking about. The UK, France and Germany do not grant automatic citizenship solely on the basis of being born within their borders.

Somehow I doubt that the proponents of this movement look to the European social model for inspiration.

 

[Region Rat]

Somehow I doubt that the proponents of this movement look to the European social model for inspiration.

Does it really matter?

 

[johnny karate]

As it stands, the solid majority of Americans agree with the Second Amendment, so the probability of getting an Amendment passed to overturn it is rather close to zero.

So then there's really no good reason to maintain the right to bear arms? It only still exists because of its popularity.

 

[johnny karate]

Does it really matter?

Of course it matters.

The UK, France, and Germany also have universal healthcare, but apparently that wasn't good enough for the U.S. because we aren't a socialist European nation.

I was under the impression it was the ways in which America was different from the rest of the world that was our source of pride. You know, beacon of hope and freedom and all that. If we're going to start emulating Europe, I'd like my free universal healthcare now, please.

 

[Region Rat]

Of course it matters.

You doubted the supporters were looking to the European model. I would tend to agree with you. I think they are doing it because they think its the right thing to do. I just asked if it mattered. You seem to want it to matter so you can set up strawmen.

The UK, France, and Germany also have universal healthcare, but apparently that wasn't good enough for the U.S. because we aren't a socialist European nation.

What does this have to do with it?

I was under the impression it was the ways in which America was different from the rest of the world that was our source of pride. You know, beacon of hope and freedom and all that. If we're going to start emulating Europe, I'd like my free universal healthcare now, please.

Who said we were doing this to emulate Europe? It was only pointed out that some European countries do not grant automatic citizenship. That was more to show that the mean old US wouldn't be alone in the despicable act of denying citizenship to whoever happens to to drop within our borders.

 

[Region Rat]

So then there's really no good reason to maintain the right to bear arms? It only still exists because of its popularity.

Of course there is a good reason to maintain the right keep and bear arms. It is a right enumerated in the second amendment. It exists because the founders put it there.

You could say it still exists because of its popularity, just as you could say the right to freedom of speech still exists because of its popularity. There has been no effort to make an amendment to revoke it.

 

[johnny karate]

Who said we were doing this to emulate Europe? It was only pointed out that some European countries do not grant automatic citizenship. That was more to show that the mean old US wouldn't be alone in the despicable act of denying citizenship to whoever happens to to drop within our borders.

How does that validate your argument?

 

[johnny karate]

Of course there is a good reason to maintain the right keep and bear arms. It is a right enumerated in the second amendment. It exists because the founders put it there.

We've already established that being in the Constitution is not a good enough reason for a right to exist. Under certain circumstances, those rights can be revoked. So for any particular right in the Constitution to have meaning, it must have an underlying rationale. I haven't seen one given for the right to bear arms.

Personally, I would say that the right to bear arms is part and parcel of the principles this nation was founded on. I would also say the same about the 14th amendment. But obviously those wishing to change/revoke the 14th amendment disagree, so I'm wondering what rationale they would offer to maintain the 2nd amendment.

You could say it still exists because of its popularity, just as you could say the right to freedom of speech still exists because of its popularity. There has been no effort to make an amendment to revoke it.

You absolutely could. And that seems to be the sentiment surrounding the desire to change/revoke the 14th amendment: Popularity vs. principles.

 

[Apology]

Of course there is a good reason to maintain the right keep and bear arms. It is a right enumerated in the second amendment. It exists because the founders put it there.

You could say it still exists because of its popularity, just as you could say the right to freedom of speech still exists because of its popularity. There has been no effort to make an amendment to revoke it.

Then, following your logic, there's a good reason to maintain the right to citizenship as enumerated in the 14th amendment. It also exists because the forefathers put it there.

Are you trying to suggest that any amendment after the Bill of Rights (1-10) is suspect because the original signors of the Constitution weren't behind it? That would mean that you found the 15th and the 19th amendments suspect, and if that's the truth, then black people and women would like to have a word with you out behind the woodshed