Hey monkeys,
This question is mostly for the American monkeys on the forum.. I've never really thought much of the birthright citizenship (never made sense to me but just didn't care) but it seems like some people are against getting rid of this because it is in the constitution. How married are you guys to the constitution? I've never truly understood the whole "it is in the constitution" argument given that it can amended.
Thanks,
| +50 | Interviews Are So Fake | 33 | 6h | |
| +33 | 2024 UK Election - Tories finished? | 21 | 1d | |
| +29 | ADHD ! | 13 | 2h | |
| +29 | Non-Competes Banned | 34 | 40m | |
| +28 | Being Christian in investment banking | 14 | 2d | |
| How do I become Sigma | 15 | 1d | ||
| +19 | Moelis has the cutest Analysts? | 4 | 2d | |
| +18 | Best NYC neighborhood for single 30M | 12 | 3d | |
| +16 | Underage intern, drinking? | 7 | 2d | |
| +13 | Secretive vs Universal Prestige? | 7 | 2d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
I thought we were gonna talk about Jew shit
I think what bothers me the most is the hypocrisy of conservatives acknowledging that the modern implications of an amendment are way beyond what the drafters intended 200 years ago in this situation, but not when it pertains to an individual having the right to own an anti-aircraft missile.
I agree. I think it would make sense to revisit both of them.
Such a bullshit false equivalency.
Birthright citizenships was clearly established after the civil war for former slaves. Zero interpretation needed.
I think hawketrackler makes a fair comparison, but goes too far to cry hypocrisy. True, you either get to be a contextualist or a literalist and you don't get to pick and choose based on your politics du jour. But you can recognize the 14th amendment is the law of the land while still believing it should be changed - there's nothing hypocritical about that, and the constitution allows for it.
You're the guy who keeps claiming Republicans have moved to the center, correct?
And the 2nd Amendment was clearly established to give citizens the right to own single-shot muskets. Constitutional law is easy now.
Once again, bullshit.
1) 2nd amendment is part of the bill of rights
2) context is key
3) fine, keep the 14th and let children born here have citizenship.
Deport their families, either put the kid in an orphanage or have the family take them home.
I’d also fine and or charge the parents with whatever crime is applicable.
Zero tolerance.
I can only imagine where this topic is going to go. The tone of these political discussions reminds me of a local group in which I was a subscriber. It was impossible to have a normal conversation without people insulting each other. I am not interested in that at all.
Well no need to have conversations with people that insult you lol. Honestly, not even looking for a political discussion although I see how this can end up being political.
You know what's a good idea? Let's end birthright citizenship so we create a permanent nonvoting underclass like what exists in Italy with the children of African immigrants. Hey! we don't actually give a shit about illegal immigration which is why we don't strongly go after the corporations that employ these people, we like the cheap labor! What we do care about is keeping them out of the voting base so we never have to actually win them over! This is a perfect way to do that as their children and potentially their children's children will never be able to vote against us. Damn, this is brilliant!
Simply deport them. Problem solved. They aren’t Italians and it isn’t Europe’s issues to solve their problems.
Simply legalize them. Then they pay taxes and their impact on American society can be more accurately assessed. Problem solved.
Winning people over is the problem with dems. Fucking ruthless people. Why not stand on values and act with leadership? I have an issue with that.
I think you're confused. Republicans stopped running on policy long ago because their policies are deeply unpopular with the average joe. Illegal immigration and nationalism is their new gay marriage and abortion.
I finally agree with BobTheBaker. National e-verify should be mandated tomorrow. Can't wait!
Will never happen. We all know why.
Not sure where you read that, probably the NYT but that simply doesn't exist.
1) Most immigrants to Italy are from Europe, mainly Romania. 2) Italy actually has among the highest naturalizations rate in Europe right now. Indeed the largest group from Africa are Moroccans and those are among the ones getting the citizenship. 3) Illegal, mostly Sub-Saharian African immigrants, shipped by NGOs from 2013 to 2017, are overwhelmingly adults. There's no way illegal adult immigrants should get a citizenship within a handful of years of staying, illegally, within the territory.
But hey, whatever lies you can use to slander anyone who opposes your no boder/ethnic replacement agenda.. or you are simply repeating some warped nonsense the liberal media spouted.
I think this issue is the difference between a guy like Obama being president and someone like Trump.
How so? The idea that someone can come to the US, have a kid and they get citizenship defies common sense. The parent isn’t a citizen.
The entire premise of the 14th amendment was to stop former confederate states from saying freed blacks weren’t citizens. It was only until the 1960s that it became a illegal immigrant/citizenship issue.
I mean that going so far as to try and change the Constitution, with all of its vast repercussions, would even be considered. If it can be changed without amendment, then I don't think it's that big of a deal, because it sounds like a misread of the Constitution anyway. I feel like Obama is more measured with a reverence to what's best for the country instead of whatever subjective thing pops into the head relative to Trump.
Maybe so, but that's not how the law was written. The writers weren't idiots, and the language was deliberately chosen with regard for how it might apply to different circumstances. That specific language was then approved by 66% of both houses and 75% of the states.
Perhaps you believe the language doesn't suit America's interests anymore, or the writers couldn't possibly have envisioned the implications of the law in unforeseen circumstances. You're in luck! The constitution allows you to change the amendment again through the same process. But absent that approval process, we're governed by the language of the amendment - not some notion of what we think they meant.
I think birthright citizenship would be less of a thing if these people paid taxes and voted. The problem is that you have the bottoms 30% of Americans paying no income tax. How should you be able to vote if you have no stake in the game? I personally would just vote money for myself too.
Fuck it, if the parents love America enough to want to uproot their whole families here, and are badass enough to actually do it, I want them and their kids here.
It sucks paying for half the countries population to exist, but it's worth it for every Steve Jobs, Larry Page, etc that come from it. Immigrants pull their weight.
That's the approach I generally believe in. If your parents are from a communist or former communist country for example and want to have a better life for both themselves and their children and aren't lazy, then come here. There are a lot of assumptions in that statement, but that's the ideal.
Yea, we should all listen to dolts who start their arguments with "fuck it." You're quite a deep thinker...and you're probably in sales.
Eliminating birthright citizenship for foreigners would remove a huge incentive for illegal immigration and end a massive loophole that is exploited by illegals using chain migration. I'm for it.
Traitorcrats want their votes. Never going to happen.
Traitorcrats? Are we 14 years old?
Would be a good idea, only if we made naturalization easier and switched to a points based immigration system so we end up getting the best immigrants (like me lol). It's to heated of a political landscape to do it right now though.
On another note, most of the rhetoric against conservatives or people like @TNA" is slightly misguided. Indian and Chinese immigrants do pretty well here and are usually qualified and I don't want to shut their doors closed. Our african immigrants( sans the somali refugees) and arabs are significantly better than Europe's since only the qualified africans and middle easterners can make it to america...can't just take a raft from libya to NYC like you can to sicily now can you. With this in mind, I'm pretty sure most of the backlash is directed towards hispanic immigrants. I'm not going to comment politically on that but just know that if the southern border was opened 500 million hispanics would poor into america the next day. I don't want that...not saying I want a wall either however.
At the end of the day, I really just resign myself to the fact that this is just another media move by troomp, I seriously doubt he cares whatsoever. If this is actually serious and he does decide to get rid of birthright citizenship, I hope he does make it easier for legal skilled immigrants to become citizens, or an easier path to PR status for talented foreign students who decide to study here..yunno people who would actually improve america as opposed to unskilled laborers from el salvador or some other decrepit LatAm country that is never going to solve their problems anyways.
Is it possible for a Republican to think of anyone but themselves anymore? Empathy has completely left the party.
"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free". This was the American mantra for 200 years, until we decided that the last uneducated, unskilled, non-English speaking immigrants we would admit would be our own European great-grandparents, but no one else's.
I’m sure Democrats are thinking about empathy and not bolstering their voting base.
That was not the American "mantra" for 200 years. Look at a the history of American naturalization and immigration laws. America's immigration laws for most of its history was either explicitly or implicitly biased towards English-speaking, skilled immigrants. There was such an angry backlash to the poor, unskilled immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe that we closed the borders in 1924.
Not to mention that basing immigration policy on a dumb, outdated poem is exactly that: dumb and outdated.
Please explain how Republicans think only of themselves? Why just republicans? What about Democrats? There is a laundry list of sketchy practices done by the left that would fall into self-interest. Have you been alive longer than 17 minutes?!?!
You are either stupid or a liar.
If the parents are there legally (not including tourists) and have a child, yes it should get citizenship. If the parents are there illegally and have a child, it should get it's parents' citizenship.
I'm generally against punishing children for the illegal actions of their parents. You appear generally for it. This won't actually solve illegal immigration. What it will do is create a permanent nonvoting underclass. I am of the opinion that is what the Republican party actually wants, because punitively punishing employers for hiring illegal immigrants thus taking away job opportunities for them would do far more to combat illegal immigration than other suggested "solutions" (like the ridiculous wall). But, as I referenced above, those in power are perfectly fine with the cheap labor as long as there is no potential said labor could actually vote against them at any point in the future. It's irrelevant anyway, if there is still such a thing as adherence to precedents, this potential executive order won't get anywhere.
I get that, but I feel like it also rewards the parents by giving them what they set out to do when they committed a crime.. It's a dilemma, both sides have valid points.
While I think discussing the "interpretation" of the 14th amendment is important I'm surprised that nobody has discussed the origination of this idea.
Honestly, I don't care whether someone puts social issues ahead of the economy or vice versa. It's just pathetic that our tweeter in chief doesn't think anything through. And get lost before you come at me with the whole "well he's NOT POLITICAL and that's what everyone loves about him." People love that because they're not educated enough to read an actual, thought out proposal. You want to make a change or issue an EO? That's fine, but come up with a plan. What exactly are you trying to change? How? Potential Ramifications? Fallout? Increased Funding? Timeline?
We're all in Finance in one way or another, you're telling me you would just hit up a client and tell him to invest in XYZ without doing diligence, prepping a pitch? Yeah, let's hold the country to a lesser standard...
If u dont have colonial blood then you'll face the guillotine and be forced to eat ghost peppers while u await execution
Pretty clear what the ammendment was intended for after doing a quick goog search. I even bolded the main point.
From Senator Howard 1866: “I do not propose to say anything on that subject,” Howard said, except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
And the 14th was originally for former slaves, not illegals.
So maybe it's time to start following the law?? No more catch and release. No more anchors. No more chain migration. This isn't a safe space on a college campus, it's a nation state. Use logic please.
Exactly. The line that people gloss over is the 2nd part of the first sentence of section one in amendment 14: "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". The bolded verbiage is intended to address his point of not including persons born in the U.S. who are foreigners/aliens.
This is just completely irrelevant.
A. Senator Howard from 1866 doesn't get to decide what the law means. B. He said that during a debate about the very question. I mean I can find a quote from the exact same debate arguing the opposite view. For example:
Senator Conness of California:
So explain why Senator Howard's word is somehow more valuable in 2018 than Senator Conness.
They're both relevant. The difference is that those Chinese laborers in California, whom Conness is talking about, had been working in the state, legally, at the time. There's a large difference in my mind between someone who comes here, works their ass off legally, and even if they don't have citizenship, then their kids should 100% have citizenship. This is much different than a tourist or illegal immigrant, without a visa/other sponsored reason for being here, who are not under jurisdiction/allegiance to the US.
As a conservative, it pains me to see the Republican party be so hypocritical. They all bitched and moaned about the deficit and about how Obama didn't respect the constitution, and in short order they've blown an even bigger hole in the budget and now many appear to be advocating for this, which is clearly unconstitutional. Not that the Democrats are any better, as it's now an us vs. them mentality, the constitution or doing what's right be damned.
This is almost as ridiculous as Trump asking for 15,000 troops to meet 4,000 people at the border, who are still 900 miles away, and I bet it'll end up being about 200 people.
Odio cumque est laboriosam rem sapiente ipsum laboriosam. Vel doloremque sit dolore quae nihil reiciendis quas. Aliquam impedit aliquid accusantium doloremque est unde. Quod ea et cumque sed quidem veritatis.
Illum qui reiciendis occaecati tempora modi qui. Tempora placeat recusandae ad delectus. Itaque molestiae expedita distinctio voluptatem. Et minima molestias consequuntur explicabo consequatur.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Ullam aspernatur laboriosam perspiciatis ea dolor. Eaque ea sunt aspernatur ea.
Consequatur ad id eum. Esse earum porro est accusamus et voluptas.
Vel eos quia optio dignissimos perferendis. Illo sint impedit incidunt quo illum incidunt modi. Ipsam sint eveniet officiis ipsam quas unde dolorem.
Dolorem optio quae facere voluptatibus quae doloremque. Eius minus est reprehenderit laboriosam. Eos dolorem quisquam excepturi voluptas earum ducimus officiis eum. Quam est veniam commodi numquam aperiam modi quasi.