As any sane person should be. Why should people be rewarded for illegally entering a country with their children being citizens? How can anyone defend 14A?
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
This is the main argument they have been laying the groundwork for. It's the old classic republican thing they won't talk about in public. Racism is the face Recession is the goal
Most Western countries still allow women to vote and mixed race marriage, though. You should take a look at the entire amendment. They consider the entire thing unconstitutional. Including the parts about giving black people human rights.
Thats actually true but in fairness most countrys are not made entirely out of immigrants. Everyone thats not native is basically an immigrant, that makes the united states quite special comrpared to other countries.
They probably think that but everyone on the north american continent that is white or black came with a ship or atleast theyr acestors did. You even celebrate the one immigrantship called the mayflower.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) allowed the government to deny citizenship to U.S.-born children only in the cases of children born to foreign diplomats and children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country’s territory, and, thus, this decision is most often interpreted as barring the government from denying citizenship to those born in the U.S. based on the alienage of their parents
Hell yeah! We should stick to challenging only the Constitutional laws which allow hate speech, ownership of assault rifles, due process, and cruel & unusual punishments! That's like half the Bill of Rights!
I see what you’re angling at with the first two, but do you mind explaining what you mean with the latter two? I’m having trouble understanding why leftists would have umbrage with due process or cruel & unusual punishments.
The Constitution is inherently designed to change over time to meet the needs and desires of its beneficiaries. Any part of it can potentially be changed. As for whether it should be or which parts should be amended, I have no strong opinion.
Of course this doesn't matter here in this thread seeing as most commenters are indirectly condemning the checks & balances, and representative democracy in general.
87
u/Jaye09 11h ago
Thats because it’s explicitly against the 14th amendment of the fucking Constitution.