Is birthright citizenship in the US an overcorrection to the end of slavery?

[repoman]

I am not trying to talk about what it right or wrong or what we think about this topic now. I think this should mostly be restricted to before 1900 or so, with most focus on the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment.

I have heard in many places the assertion in the title question I posted. But like many assertions it may not be very true or only a portion of the picture.

Was the intention of the most likely very racist (even against Irish, Italians and Eastern Europeans) politicians at the time of
the 14th amendment to allow illegal aliens to have citizen children? Or is this a happy accident?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause

"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."

 

[Derec]

Or is this a happy accident?

You mean unhappy accident?

The situation in the 19th century was very different. I have no doubt those who wrote the amendment did not intend it to generate "anchor babies" for illegals.

 

[Bronzeage]

Or is this a happy accident?

You mean unhappy accident?

The situation in the 19th century was very different. I have no doubt those who wrote the amendment did not intend it to generate "anchor babies" for illegals.

What is your objection to anchor babies?

 

[dismal]

Keep in mind the Constitution is a living document so it needn't always say what it actually says.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You mean unhappy accident?

The situation in the 19th century was very different. I have no doubt those who wrote the amendment did not intend it to generate "anchor babies" for illegals.

What is your objection to anchor babies?

Using babies as anchors is cruel. You should use a rock or something.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Keep in mind the Constitution is a living document so it needn't always say what it actually says.

I know you don't believe that it's a living document - that's sarcasm for sure -, but I've not been able to figure out what you actually mean. Could you clarify, please?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Keep in mind the Constitution is a living document so it needn't always say what it actually says.

I know you don't believe that it's a living document - that's sarcasm for sure -, but I've not been able to figure out what you actually mean. Could you clarify, please?

I think he means that the US should be more like the Amish and realize that they got everything perfect a couple hundred years ago and there's no need for any updates or advancements.

 

[dismal]

I know you don't believe that it's a living document - that's sarcasm for sure -, but I've not been able to figure out what you actually mean. Could you clarify, please?

I think he means that the US should be more like the Amish and realize that they got everything perfect a couple hundred years ago and there's no need for any updates or advancements.

No, I mean that while a doctrinaire Gorsuchian Scaliaphile might think that "All persons born...in the United States...are citizens of the United States" would be plain enough English to settle the issue in a nation of laws, the living power of the Constitution means that it says whatever we (or, more practically Trump) want it to say.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Given how difficult travel was back then anchor babies weren't a realistic issue.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Given how difficult travel was back then anchor babies weren't a realistic issue.

Very true. Boats of the time had a much shallower draft, so it was a much better plan to use one of the adult black people from the hold as an anchor, since they weighed a lot more than the average baby.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Keep in mind the Constitution is a living document so it needn't always say what it actually says.

I know you don't believe that it's a living document - that's sarcasm for sure -, but I've not been able to figure out what you actually mean. Could you clarify, please?

James Madison believed the document was carved on stone. Thomas Jefferson believed it was living. Madison won out overall. However, given nearing 250 years of history, there has been a tad bit of hindsight and change. People like dismal feel that change is best left to the states to decide.

- - - Updated - - -

Given how difficult travel was back then anchor babies weren't a realistic issue.

Yes, marching through the desert with very limited food and water for a month or two is a cake walk. Much easier today than it was in the 19th century.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I think he means that the US should be more like the Amish and realize that they got everything perfect a couple hundred years ago and there's no need for any updates or advancements.

No, I mean that while a doctrinaire Gorsuchian Scaliaphile might think that "All persons born...in the United States...are citizens of the United States" would be plain enough English to settle the issue in a nation of laws, the living power of the Constitution means that it says whatever we (or, more practically Trump) want it to say.

Thanks. And I agree it's plain enough.

 

[dismal]

No, I mean that while a doctrinaire Gorsuchian Scaliaphile might think that "All persons born...in the United States...are citizens of the United States" would be plain enough English to settle the issue in a nation of laws, the living power of the Constitution means that it says whatever we (or, more practically Trump) want it to say.

Thanks. And I agree it's plain enough.

Unless we decide it isn't.

 

[Underseer]

Seriously? You have a problem with giving citizenship to people born here?

What? Do you want to have a race-check requirement added on our something?

A requirement that the parents jump through hoops and fill out forms in triplicate for twenty years?

And how can we redefine citizenship to deny it to you? I get the feeling you don't like living in an immigrant nation. Maybe you should just leave and go back to whatever country your immigrant ancestors came from.

 

[Mumbles]

Here's the answer.

No.

 

[LordKiran]

Seriously? You have a problem with giving citizenship to people born here?

What? Do you want to have a race-check requirement added on our something?

A requirement that the parents jump through hoops and fill out forms in triplicate for twenty years?

And how can we redefine citizenship to deny it to you? I get the feeling you don't like living in an immigrant nation. Maybe you should just leave and go back to whatever country your immigrant ancestors came from.

Ehh, I rather like the idea of citizenship not being a given on a conceptual level, but not for any reasons Dismal/Derec probably do.

 

[bilby]

Here's the answer.

No.

</Thread>..

 

[repoman]

I think he means that the US should be more like the Amish and realize that they got everything perfect a couple hundred years ago and there's no need for any updates or advancements.

No, I mean that while a doctrinaire Gorsuchian Scaliaphile might think that "All persons born...in the United States...are citizens of the United States" would be plain enough English to settle the issue in a nation of laws, the living power of the Constitution means that it says whatever we (or, more practically Trump) want it to say.

I think that the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part will be where they try anything.

Let's go into really wacko right wing ideas and how will they talk about mild sharia legal mediation services that may happen here as in the UK. Will they say that it makes them not under the US jurisdiction and they have abdicated citizenship. This despite catholic annulments not drawing ire.

But let me say that full criminal justice sharia with stonings is obviously insane and people who do it need to be criminally investigated. You could also maybe find a Christian sect wanting to reinstate Deuteronomy and hell no for that too.

 

[Bomb#20]

Or is this a happy accident?

You mean unhappy accident?

The situation in the 19th century was very different. I have no doubt those who wrote the amendment did not intend it to generate "anchor babies" for illegals.

But the amendment doesn't generate anchor babies. What it says is all about babies, nothing about anchors. Anchor babies are generated by us not having the balls to say "Your baby can stay; you can't.".

 

[Bomb#20]

Given how difficult travel was back then anchor babies weren't a realistic issue.

Very true. Boats of the time had a much shallower draft, so it was a much better plan to use one of the adult black people from the hold as an anchor, since they weighed a lot more than the average baby.

Plus they're not as buoyant.