Texas: Days without being a national embarrassment - 0

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Judge Says Texas Can Continue Denying Birth Certificates To Immigrants' Kids

Texas can — for now — continue to deny issuing birth certificates to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, a federal judge decided on Friday.

If you remember, a group of undocumented immigrants sued the state because it refused to issue birth certificates saying certain types of identification cards issued by foreign governments could not be used.

The parents of the American children argued that Vital Statistics offices were refusing to accept a matrícula, an ID card issued by Mexican consulates across the country, and a foreign passport without a U.S. visa as valid forms of IDs.

Now it seems to me that the child is an American citizen by birth according to our Constitution. So what difference does the parent's ID have to do with issuing a birth certificate for the child. Especially when one of the forms of ID being presented is a passport? To me it just sounds like Texas is trying to find a way to deny citizenship by birth to these kids.

 

[someoneyouknow]

If you're here illegally, and thus breaking the law, why should your kids get the benefit of citizenship?

That's like saying someone who steals should be able to keep their loot even when found out.

 

[Sean]

If you're here illegally, and thus breaking the law, why should your kids get the benefit of citizenship?

That's like saying someone who steals should be able to keep their loot even when found out.

Because that's what the fucking constitution says, you dumb cunt.

 

[DesEsseintes]

If you're here illegally, and thus breaking the law, why should your kids get the benefit of citizenship?

That's like saying someone who steals should be able to keep their loot even when found out.

And that is like comparing human children to stolen goods.

 

[Jennifer]

Because that's what the fucking constitution says, you dumb cunt.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Anyone who goes around quoting the 2nd amendment can't complain about children born in America having a claim to citizenship. Constitution rules or it does not. No cherry picking allowed.

That is what constitutions are the rule of law. Not the mob. Even if the mob is 50%+1. The law rules not the mob and populist politicians.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

If you're here illegally, and thus breaking the law, why should your kids get the benefit of citizenship?

That's like saying someone who steals should be able to keep their loot even when found out.

The Constitution confers citizenship on EVERY person born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship of the parents.

I'm torn between thinking that you're stupid or just ignorant.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

The Constitution confers citizenship on EVERY person born in the U.S. regardless of the citizenship of the parents.

I'm torn between thinking that you're stupid or just ignorant.

Maybe you should adopt them all.

 

[someoneyouknow]

Because that's what the fucking constitution says, you dumb cunt.

So breaking the law doesn't mean a damn thing? Good to know. I'll remind the judge when you whine about me walking into your place and making myself at home. After all, if you're okay with people randomly walking into the country you'll have no problem with me doing the same to you.

People who break the law should not, and are not, allowed to reap the benefits of their crime. The same applies here.

P.S. If you read the actual text, there is something most people, like with the 2nd Amendment, leave out.

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.

Therefore, if the person is supposedly a citizen since they were born here, they can also be subject to imprisonment for being here illegally.

Or are we going to ignore that which we don't like to admit?

 

[Sean]

So breaking the law doesn't mean a damn thing? Good to know. I'll remind the judge when you whine about me walking into your place and making myself at home. After all, if you're okay with people randomly walking into the country you'll have no problem with me doing the same to you.

People who break the law should not, and are not, allowed to reap the benefits of their crime. The same applies here.

Are you retarded?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Judge Says Texas Can Continue Denying Birth Certificates To Immigrants' Kids

Texas can — for now — continue to deny issuing birth certificates to the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, a federal judge decided on Friday.

If you remember, a group of undocumented immigrants sued the state because it refused to issue birth certificates saying certain types of identification cards issued by foreign governments could not be used.

The parents of the American children argued that Vital Statistics offices were refusing to accept a matrícula, an ID card issued by Mexican consulates across the country, and a foreign passport without a U.S. visa as valid forms of IDs.

Now it seems to me that the child is an American citizen by birth according to our Constitution. So what difference does the parent's ID have to do with issuing a birth certificate for the child. Especially when one of the forms of ID being presented is a passport? To me it just sounds like Texas is trying to find a way to deny citizenship by birth to these kids.

That's because you're an idiot. Not even the State of Texas is making such a claim. Not to mention that newborns are routinely fingerprinted and/or heel printed at birth. Not to mention also being blood screened and entered into a DNA database within 48 hours of birth.

This story makes it "sound to me" like Texas is primarily concerned with not being able to positively establish the identity of the mother and does not wish to provide any "legal documentation" by which she could falsify her identity. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/07/23/425568894/texas-fights-suit-after-denying-birth-certificates-to-children-of-illegal-immigr

 

[Colonel Hogan]

So breaking the law doesn't mean a damn thing? Good to know. I'll remind the judge when you whine about me walking into your place and making myself at home. After all, if you're okay with people randomly walking into the country you'll have no problem with me doing the same to you.

People who break the law should not, and are not, allowed to reap the benefits of their crime. The same applies here.

You should rush to the emergency room and have a doctor pull your head out of your ass. An unborn child does NOT violate any laws by being BORN in this country. An unborn child (aka "fetus") does NOT illegally ENTER a country because it has no ability to PHYSICALLY COMMIT the prohibited act NOR FORM the MENTAL STATE OF INTENT which are components of most felony criminal acts.

There are TWO laws at work here: the immigration law(s) which THE MOTHER violates by illegally entering the country, and the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH established by the 14th Amendment and long ago upheld by the United States Supreme Court.

The ONLY thing these two laws have in common is the ignorance of their independence from one another from which people like you suffer.

 

[Aella_]

Man, am I fed up with the self-righteous attitude and the name-calling from a few of Lit's "libs.. (not including you, Col. Hogan)
I see it every time someone who's conservative tries to express a different opinion from theirs, in a debate. Some conservatives just want to vent, or to express and justify their opinion. Free speech, no matter how controversial or unpalatable their opinions might be . It's not like they're gonna go on a shooting rampage and kill all immigrants, homosexuals, etc., and us Lit. libs are gonna save them.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

Man, am I fed up with the self-righteous attitude and the name-calling from a few of Lit's "libs.. (not including you, Col. Hogan)
I see it every time someone who's conservative tries to express a different opinion from theirs, in a debate. Some conservatives just want to vent, or to express and justify their opinion. Free speech, no matter how controversial or unpalatable their opinions might be . It's not like they're gonna go on a shooting rampage and kill all immigrants, homosexuals, etc., and us Lit. libs are gonna save them.

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=1238536

 

[Sean]

Man, am I fed up with the self-righteous attitude and the name-calling from a few of Lit's "libs.. (not including you, Col. Hogan)
I see it every time someone who's conservative tries to express a different opinion from theirs, in a debate. Some conservatives just want to vent, or to express and justify their opinion. Free speech, no matter how controversial or unpalatable their opinions might be . It's not like they're gonna go on a shooting rampage and kill all immigrants, homosexuals, etc., and us Lit. libs are gonna save them.

Shut up, Dishrag. There is no debate here, the someoneyouknow moron is flat out wrong and ignorant.

 

[Aella_]

Shut up, Dishrag.

1.Ok. Dishrag - coming from you and Fata Morgana : I don't find it offensive. But whenever Aglaophene or Que use this nickname, I don't like it, because I sense a different intent.

There is no debate here, the someoneyouknow moron is flat out wrong and ignorant.

2.No, he's not.
From the pov of the law, he might be, indeed, ignorant, IF that was his point.
But from, say, an utalitarian or perhaps moral pov. etc., he brings up some interesting issues for discussion. Not that I agree with him, but such debates can be interesting.

 

[Sean]

1.Ok. Dishrag - coming from you and Fata Morgana : I don't find it offensive. But whenever Aglaophene or Que use this nickname, I don't like it, because I sense a different intent.


2.No, he's not.
From the pov of the law, he might be, indeed, ignorant, IF that was his point.
But from, say, an utalitarian or perhaps moral pov. etc., he brings up some interesting issues for discussion. Not that I agree with him, but such debates can be interesting.

No, he doesn't. He is flat out fucking wrong. Go and Google the 14th Amendment to the US constitution, you dumb fuck.

 

[ms_ann_thrope]

Texas is basically being invaded by a foreign country and the federal government is pretending it isn't happening.

 

[Aella_]

No, he doesn't. He is flat out fucking wrong. Go and Google the 14th Amendment to the US constitution, you dumb fuck.

I said moral/utalitarian etc., NOT law or constitution.
Ok, the dumb fuck is taking a hike, now. I'll leave you to it.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Obviously morally right and legally right are two separate things. Someoneyouknow however is clearly talking about the law and is simply incorrect. Born in the US=US citizen. Period. There is nothing else to discuss on that front.

Now if you, like much of the world thinks that jus soli is bullshit that would be a conversation worthy of happening. Not whether it was US common law prior to the 14th Amendment. It was. Not if the 14th Amendment was meant to be applied as it is today. The men who wrote it weren't stupid. Even if this wasn't the intended application they certainly didn't phrase it in away that would avoid this. Either way it has been interpreted as such for decades. But if you want to change the law so be it. These were not handed down from God they were written by men and there is no good reason why we shouldn't review them from time to time and change them to fit what we currently think best suits our nation.

 

[doowdniw]

Obviously morally right and legally right are two separate things. Someoneyouknow however is clearly talking about the law and is simply incorrect. Born in the US=US citizen. Period. There is nothing else to discuss on that front.

Now if you, like much of the world thinks that jus soli is bullshit that would be a conversation worthy of happening. Not whether it was US common law prior to the 14th Amendment. It was. Not if the 14th Amendment was meant to be applied as it is today. The men who wrote it weren't stupid. Even if this wasn't the intended application they certainly didn't phrase it in away that would avoid this. Either way it has been interpreted as such for decades. But if you want to change the law so be it. These were not handed down from God they were written by men and there is no good reason why we shouldn't review them from time to time and change them to fit what we currently think best suits our nation.

The process for amending the Federal Constitution is an onerous one for good reason.

 

[Sean]

The process for amending the Federal Constitution is an onerous one for good reason.

Which is why I'm amazed the 18th amendment ever got passed.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The process for amending the Federal Constitution is an onerous one for good reason.

Perhaps it was once upon a time (I have my doubts) but it certainly isn't a good reason in the modern world.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Obviously morally right and legally right are two separate things. Someoneyouknow however is clearly talking about the law and is simply incorrect. Born in the US=US citizen. Period. There is nothing else to discuss on that front.

Now if you, like much of the world thinks that jus soli is bullshit that would be a conversation worthy of happening. Not whether it was US common law prior to the 14th Amendment. It was. Not if the 14th Amendment was meant to be applied as it is today. The men who wrote it weren't stupid. Even if this wasn't the intended application they certainly didn't phrase it in away that would avoid this. Either way it has been interpreted as such for decades. But if you want to change the law so be it. These were not handed down from God they were written by men and there is no good reason why we shouldn't review them from time to time and change them to fit what we currently think best suits our nation.

Not only is your 18th century common law analysis of jus soli valid along with the obvious formal adoption of it by the 14th Amendment, I am convinced through further research that the framers of the 14th fully intended incorporation of the federal Bill of Rights against the states by virtue of the privilege and immunities', equal protection and due process clauses. This is in conflict with the SCOTUS ruling in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) and the subsequent common law evolution resulting in selective incorporation of each amendment specifically.

But based on minutes and speeches within Congress, I now believe there is no doubt about what the framers intended.

 

[BabblingBrooke]

1.Ok. Dishrag - coming from you and Fata Morgana : I don't find it offensive. But whenever Aglaophene or Que use this nickname, I don't like it, because I sense a different intent.

You think it's an endearment when Sean calls you dishrag? You really struggle with context.