Is it Time to Change the 14 Amendment?

[Zan15]

I love that there is a huge problem in this country in regards to how many people need welfare, food stamps, medicaid, section 8, etc...and the reason s why So many people need the programs.

.and the best response to this problem is blame it on the illegals???

Illegals can't get welfare. They can't get food stamps. This is very clear in all the programs rules and eligibility.

Just more deflection away from the real problems in this country regarding corporations, wage deflation and stagnation, and the huge gap in wealth driven by special rules for 1% of this country.

He'll if you went after welfare fraud by white citizens you would save 10x the money you think you would save with illegals.

[Acidbaron]

"Death to americans" seems fitting here, ironically enough chanted by americans.

Than again the christian nation was never really interested in the well being of anyone other than their direct environment.

[Barnabas]

Weren't all Americans illegal "aliens" at one point or other? Your great great grandparents could have been illegals....

No my grandparents were citizens and so were their grandparents. I mean I can trace back before the united states existed.

[Mehrunes]

US moderates in their natural habitat.

[Hiricine]

You're joking right? 1492.

What sovereign nation's borders did they enter, and what example of a standing nation can you find that was not founded based on the annexation or conquest of another one? If you want to have a discussion about how most nations are illegitimate and that there should be no American citizens we might be having a discussion here, but it does not legitimize the current illegal immigrants even if you use your definition to extend to all prior peoples coming to America, if anything it further attacks that notion.

[Kiri]

What sovereign nation's borders did they enter, and what example of a standing nation can you find that was not founded based on the annexation or conquest of another one? If you want to have a discussion about how most nations are illegitimate and that there should be no American citizens we might be having a discussion here, but it does not legitimize the current illegal immigrants even if you use your definition to extend to all prior peoples coming to America, if anything it further attacks that notion.

To be honest, this argument always irked me. There were tribes with defined territory in America before the settlers came along. They had leadership, rules and people. Just because the settlers never recognized them as 'nations' due to them having been behind in development does not mean they weren't.

[Zeta333]

Two illegal immigrants can violate our border laws, then crank out children and exploit them for welfare. Which they often do because they cannot survive on their rock bottom wages. The American tax payer takes up the slack.

I 100% agree, popping out a child over the border to get it to be a citzen should be 100% negated. If you enter the country illegally or remain here illegally and give birth it should not gain anything native to america and should be treated the same as the parrents.

- - - Updated - - -

To be honest, this argument always irked me. There were tribes with defined territory in America before the settlers came along. They had leadership, rules and people. Just because the settlers never recognized them as 'nations' due to them having been behind in development does not mean they weren't.

And they got conquered as did most nations in the known world at that time, you would be hardpressed to find a country where someone wasnt invaded or conquered in that land at one point, the strong survive and conquer and the weak die out. thats how the world was back then.

[Kiri]

And they got conquered as did most nations in the known world at that time, you would be hardpressed to find a country where someone wasnt invaded or conquered in that land at one point, the strong survive and conquer and the weak die out. thats how the world was back then.

How does that make it any more legal, though? The point contested there was that at some point, these settlers had been illegal immigrants. Them just killing off the native population does not really change anything about the legality of it.

Unless, of course, you just go by 'might makes right'.

[NED funded]

Honestly, if all benefits were taken away from illegal immigrants, they would head back for the border. Meaning, they would have to prove they are a citizen before they can claim any sort of tax-payer money, regardless if they have children or not born on US soil.

Bash me if you like, but I feel like we should be taking care of our veterans first, especially if they are homeless, before any illegal immigrant. Our system is incredibly flawed.

No, they wouldn't. You are serioulsy overstating the amount of benefits illegal immigrants recieve.

[Hiricine]

Has their citizenship been approved by the native americans? Because they're really the only ones in a position to do that, everyone else is just an illegal immigrant of one way or another.

What Native American nation exists today to counter the claim of the current American Government, and if one exists are they even interested in doing so? Also if everyone is not a legal immigrant then we should end all government programs by extension. If you want to argue against the legitimacy of the USA thats a fine discussion to have, but in the context of "Should the USA allow children born in the US by noncitizens to be citizens at birth", that is not relevant to the topic, because without the existence of the US in the first place there is no context for the question.

[NED funded]

No, this is stupid. If you are born in America you are American. Should there be some changes to prevent abuse? Sure, but keeping it is essential.

[Magicpot]

What Native American nation exists today to counter the claim of the current American Government, and if one exists are they even interested in doing so? Also if everyone is not a legal immigrant then we should end all government programs by extension. If you want to argue against the legitimacy of the USA thats a fine discussion to have, but in the context of "Should the USA allow children born in the US by noncitizens to be citizens at birth", that is not relevant to the topic, because without the existence of the US in the first place there is no context for the question.

None, because the illegal immigrants that came to the US (the people you're related to) wiped them out in a genocide.

If anything, y'all have an obligation to support the remaining native americans and work to return ALL of the US to them.

[Macaquerie]

And they got conquered as did most nations in the known world at that time, you would be hardpressed to find a country where someone wasnt invaded or conquered in that land at one point, the strong survive and conquer and the weak die out. thats how the world was back then.

That is not how the world was back then. Europeans had well-established rules of diplomacy by that time and mostly stuck by those rules when dealing with each other, they just conveniently decided that these didn't really apply when dealing with savages. Let's not pretend that white people somehow took over the continent through feats of arms, it was mostly a matter of broken promises and backstabbing, with a major assist from smallpox, that sealed it.

[Stormdash]

Two illegal immigrants can violate our border laws, then crank out children and exploit them for welfare. Which they often do because they cannot survive on their rock bottom wages. The American tax payer takes up the slack.

There is still good faith legal argument to be made that birthright citizenship is not per se mandated within the language of the 14th Amendment and that Congress could do away with it by statute. It's certainly not anywhere in any writing pertaining to the 14th Amendment contemporaneous to its adoption that such a thing was what it meant. The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment was written to give legal standing as citizens to freed slaves, after all -- people who were born in and residing in the United States and not citizens of any other country, either, that was who the language was drafted to target, to make clear that such as these were citizens of the United States and of the states in which they reside.

But if the current reinterpretation to mean "obligate birthright citizenship for any who reach our borders" prevails, yes, it would be worth changing by amendment. It's self-destructive lunacy and always has been, it's not found much of anywhere, or anywhere, in the western world, and for good reason.

[Hiricine]

Uhm...what? "those people"? What people? Immigrants? Are you saying that if legal citizens vote in a manner that allows a path to legality for non-legal immigrants, this will someone be "bad for everyone"? Are you assuming that only the children of illegal immigrants support a path to amnesty? Because that is demonstrably false. Furthermore, you completely failed to say how amnesty was a bad thing. Please explain how legal citizens voting to legalize more immigrants, many of whom would then immediately begin paying income tax and further contributing to the economy, is somehow "bad for everyone." I'm STILL WAITING.

The current waves of immigrants vote largely or lower taxes for themselves and increased government spending, which is logically unsustainable. On top of that, amnesty for more would only further that agenda, and the idea that immigrants pay more in taxes than they take in in benefits, especially if you consider the cost of taking care of their noncitizen children if you include public education programs puts the number at not even close to sustainable.

I'd be all for taking away the citizenship of everyone who would vote for a path to amnesty, its just that theres not a practical or politically viable way to do so.

[NED funded]

Welfare, healthcare, free school lunch for their kids, government grants for their kids to attend college, etc. Anchor babies take away a lot of opportunities for American citizens.

How, like seriously how is taking away opportunities from natives? Sons of veterans are getting federal grants if they apply for one and for the remaining ones it is demanded from them to finish their careers as shortly as possible, giving the economy what we need skilled labour.

[cLax0n]

Actually, the change in the law would make that child not a legal citizen, so they get to go back home with their parents and families. #Stopbreakingupfamilies

- - - Updated - - -



Naw, because my ancestors were Irish, and we all know that Irish sure as hell weren't the ones with slaves, and they came to the United States on a boat legally during the potato famine.

Now then, back to you... oh right, buh-bye.

So your ancestors were immigrants? Wow this must only be unique to you.

[Machismo]

Honestly, if all benefits were taken away from illegal immigrants, they would head back for the border. Meaning, they would have to prove they are a citizen before they can claim any sort of tax-payer money, regardless if they have children or not born on US soil.

Bash me if you like, but I feel like we should be taking care of our veterans first, especially if they are homeless, before any illegal immigrant. Our system is incredibly flawed.

So, what do you do to help all those veterans?

[Macaquerie]

The current waves of immigrants vote largely or lower taxes for themselves and increased government spending, which is logically unsustainable. On top of that, amnesty for more would only further that agenda, and the idea that immigrants pay more in taxes than they take in in benefits, especially if you consider the cost of taking care of their noncitizen children if you include public education programs puts the number at not even close to sustainable.

I'd be all for taking away the citizenship of everyone who would vote for a path to amnesty, its just that theres not a practical or politically viable way to do so.

That argument makes no sense, there isn't some special tax rate specifically for immigrants, and most of them vote Democratic anyway, you know, the party that's always advocating for higher taxes. In any event, it's not as if individual voters have much of a say in setting tax policy, because if we did, any referendum to tax the 1% into oblivion and redistribute their wealth to the 99% would pass by overwhelming margins.

[Machismo]

Of course we shouldn't touch the 14th Amendment, it has become the epitome of what it means to be free and equal in this country. If you don't like illegals being on welfare, then you have a welfare problem, not a 14th Amendment problem. Honestly, it seems like the hatred for the 14trh Amendment is based more off of bigotry and xenophobia, than anything else.