Ron Paul, anyone?

Now, send mom back, that's fine. Prevent any such child from sponsoring family members for citizenship, I'm there. But if you're born here, you're s citizen...both in my opinion and from what I consider a very reasonable interpretation of the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

Juan,
Using that as a model is doing nothing more than creating another social program or further burdening an already overused social program. What do you propose be done with the newest infant citizen? If you don't send him back with his mother, but instead throw him into the welfare system, isn't that more inhumane than keeping mother and child united in their country of origin?
 
On the intelligence gathering vote, who voted no on that one AND is a better all around choice for protecting our liberties than Paul? Got a candidate in mind?
Click to expand...
Mike Gravel is looking really interesting to me.
 
Also, I find it amusing that all these attempts to twist the words of the 14th to deny birthright citizenship sound oddly reminiscent of anti-gun folks getting all wrapped around the axle about that first clause in the 2nd.
Click to expand...

Judging by the quotes from Congresscritters who actually wrote and voted on the 14th amendment, I would say that what you call attempts to twist the words of the amendment are actually attempts to UNtwist them back into their original intended meaning.
 
As far as earning citizenship, it has earned it the same way most of us have earned it...it was born directly above the right piece of land.
Click to expand...

Born to someone above our laws, or someone under the jurisdiction of our laws? I see a difference, and so did the people who wrote the 14th amendment.
 
He supports the end of this retarded war, legalization of marijuana, universal health care, equal treatment of gays in both the military and civilian life, proponent of the Fair Tax and reforming NAFTA. Overall he's pretty good. In fact I think it'd be awesome to see a Gravel/Paul ticket or maybe Paul/Gravel so they can even each other out a bit.
 
Born to someone above our laws, or someone under the jurisdiction of our laws? I see a difference, and so did the people who wrote the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...
Someone breaking the law is not "above" the law. Breaking one law does not mean one is not subject to the rest.
 
Someone breaking the law is not "above" the law. Breaking one law does not mean one is not subject to the rest.
Click to expand...

My concern is that the birthright interpretation rewards illegal immigration. At the time the 14th was written, you could be born in the US and still considered a foreigner, at least according to the quote in post #53:

Sen. Howard said that "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."
Click to expand...

If being born here means you are under US jurisdiction, then why add the clause about jurisdiction at all, and why the conjunction "and"?

How does this Gravel character feel about my guns?
 
Judging by the quotes from Congresscritters who actually wrote and voted on the 14th amendment, I would say that what you call attempts to twist the words of the amendment are actually attempts to UNtwist them back into their original intended meaning.
Click to expand...

AMEN!:)
 
The child != the border crosser. It's a separate human being, that at the time of its birth had broken no laws. As far as earning citizenship, it has earned it the same way most of us have earned it...it was born directly above the right piece of land.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? You actually believe "most" of us were born here by illegal aliens?:rolleyes:

I hate to burst your PC bubble, but most of us earned our U.S. citenzship by being born here by two legal U.S. citizens.
 
The child != the border crosser. It's a separate human being, that at the time of its birth had broken no laws. As far as earning citizenship, it has earned it the same way most of us have earned it...it was born directly above the right piece of land.
Click to expand...
Are you serious? You actually believe "most" of us were born here by illegal aliens? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I shure do! OLOL!!!1!1

I said "most" because I know we have a few naturalized citizens around here.

I hate to burst your PC bubble, but most of us earned our U.S. citenzship by being born here by two legal U.S. citizens.
Click to expand...

So you "earned" something through the actions of another? Makes sense. :rolleyes:

Maybe I shouldn't be allowed to buy guns, since my "dad" (who plays no part in my life, hence quotes) is a convicted felon.

New thread for birthright citizenship discussion. Please respond there. And if everybody else would move that direction...
 
Redworm,
I have no idea what roll call #103 pertained to, but #108 definitely pertained to H.R. 5020. I saw it on there, but I'm afraid you'll have to take my statement at face value until you can verify it yourself. It's not loading for me at the moment either. Check out Thomas. They back me up.
H.R.5020
Title: To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] (introduced 3/28/2006) Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.RES.774, S.3237
Latest Major Action: 5/1/2006 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 418.
House Reports: 109-411
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAJOR ACTIONS:
3/28/2006 Introduced in House
4/6/2006 Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Intelligence (Permanent). H. Rept. 109-411.
4/26/2006 Passed/agreed to in House: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 327 - 96 (Roll no. 108).
5/1/2006 Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 418.
Click to expand...
#103? #108? That could certainly be the source of the mistake, but the congressional record has his vote recorded as a no, which would be expected given his comments on the subject.

As an aside (just in case this wasn't an honest mistake on their part) you might want to consider getting your information from www.vote-smart.org. They are completely unbiased and provide no opinion or commentary; just fact.
 
Yeah, it's loading now. Not sure why it wouldn't at first. Maybe I'm a little confused but I thought H.RES.774 was the actual vote that mattered though I do see where H.R.5020 was a no vote. I'm trying to understand this myself but it looks like those bills are only related and not necessarily one in the same. :confused:

I do get my information from vote-smart as well, I just like using various sources. :p vote-smart didn't seem to have this particular bill listed.

If I figure anything more out I'll let y'all know.
 
oh woops, I think I figured it out

btw

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HE00774:
Title: Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 5020) to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.
Click to expand...
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll103.xml

He voted yes to consider the bill.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR05020:@@@R
Title: To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2007 for intelligence and intelligence-related activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for other purposes.
Click to expand...
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll108.xml

He voted no against the actual bill.
Click to expand...
 
In New Hampshire we have an odd little system of yes vs. no votes - if a committee votes a bill Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL), in order to kill the bill on a full floor vote, you have to vote "Yes," because you're voting to accept the committee recommendation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top