Your first sentence isn't logical. There is no connection between the two. The opposite would be a more logical connection. If it's not an issue than there should be no reason to require ID. I don't really feel we're going to find common ground on this, and I'm sure you feel the same. It is what it is.
I hear you. And at a high level, it isn't. But there are people affected, so if we're going to change the law, I think we should either have a provable reason why (actual issues with fraud, not feelings), or put some money behind it and have a census like campaign to get everyone that is registered to vote an ID (and make them free always moving forward).
And was that voter fraud related to being undocumented and doing so because they didn't have an ID?
Sounds like your son is really smart...maybe smartest male in the family
....career army here!
I think that book would interest you. It’s really good, it gives today’s regional mindsets a historical perspective. It’s crazy how those cultures have remained intact in those people for so long. Our programming was done by our ancestors. I’d be willing to bet mine were apprehensive of trusting authority and fiercely loyal, I am.
But you would agree, you would have no way to know if it's even an issue if ID is not required. You would never be able to prove fraud or no fraud because you wouldn't know.
after thinking a bout this, you have a really good question!
He definitely is. My grandpa was career army as well. Think we've talked about it. Always use to say Hitler chose his career for him. Was in all three wars. Artillery. Was a forward observer in WW2 (behind enemy lines calling in coordinates for those who don't know). Had his old helmet that was missing a chunk where a bullet almost killed him on Christmas one of those years in France. Then obviously command for the other two. Retired a full bird.Sounds like your son is really smart...maybe smartest male in the family
Yeah, interesting thought experiment if nothing else. You'd have to start somewhere if constitutionally, birth doesn't convey citizenship. I certainly haven't done anything other than be born here. Haven't taken any sort of test, etc.
I guess if you say so, we just have to accept that as truth.
Like I said, I definitely understand that, and wouldn't personally know a soul who doesn't have an ID.
You could require additional criteria.
There are lots of ways you could do, but like Yoshi mentioned, would take a change to the constitution. My question is more related to the claim that what the constitution says, isn't what it means or was meant for etc. And I am saying if not, there is no other mechanism, other than naturalization. That there would need to be an act of congress. Now, in that act, you could do all sort of things, like grandfather everyone that has a birth certificate now in to the old way, and then say one parent has to have their own US Citizen BC for the newborn to qualify, etc. But that would take an act of congress, rather than just making it up as we go along. Otherwise, the next administration could just do the opposite.
Follow the Fulton County story. The 2020 steal is going to blow wide open this year imo.
Everyone legal has an.id. we need a citizenship database though of some kind.
Correct. I do believe it. I am assuming you are aware of the FBI raid at Fulton with Tulsi Gabbard in attendance??? I wouldn't laugh at it.
Democrats issuing ss numbers and allowing them to get drivers licenses in certain states has blurred the lines here. Its a real problem and was done for that reason.
Starts with a green card and ends with citizenship after you complete with process....
Right, that’s naturalization and is straightforward. I’m saying how does anyone else prove they’re a citizen if it isn’t imparted by birth.
Do you mean how are we determining who’s American originally? I would think all citizens and green card holders would be grandfathered in, then it starts there with those parents. Most countries don’t award citizenship simply for being born in their country. Think about an American man and woman who live and work in china. They have a child - that child is American, not Chinese. They award citizenship based on the nationality of the parents and at least one of them would have to be an American citizen. That seems reasonable to me. Implementation would be difficult obviously. If you’re intimating that there could be a big round up of people to determine where they’re from, I doubt that happens. Maybe another good reason for ID and to know who’s here.
There just is no other constitutional mechanism, other than birth and naturalization. So if one isn’t valid, me and you aren’t citizens, constitutionally. Without it being paired with some act of Congress.
But when you start saying “grandfathered” in, you’re talking as if this is a new law, and they can write that in. What this thread is about is saying birthright citizenship isn’t a thing other than for slaves. But we aren’t talking about a new law, in which case, I agree, there are a lot of ways it could be done.
Well you’d have to start somewhere if it’s to be amended. I’m not sure what you’re asking. Let me try this - if you were elected president tomorrow and wanted to do away with birthright like 95% of the world, how would you go about it? What would be your process and selection criteria? Or at the least, what would your ideal scenario look like?
Right. Amended. That’s my whole point. I agree with you. But this thread is about birthright citizenship not being a thing except for the strict reading of freed slaves. So I was just pointing out that if so, no one on this board (to my knowledge) would be a citizen (possible someone is a naturalized citizen and they just don’t advertise it).
But it’s never been interpreted or implemented that way. I’m specifically asking how do we move forward. I understand the current system, don’t like it. So if we just said, we are starting over, what’s that look like?
I agree. Just think if Congress wants to get rid of retail pregnancy, which I understand, they should get a law through. But mainly I disagree with the alternative reading of the constitution and think it should take a law or amendment to change it.
Yea but I think “reading” it to mean one thing is just opinion right? We don’t care about that, we care about implementation of the laws.
Right. I’m just saying, to my knowledge, the only mechanism of citizenship established is birth and the naturalization process. So if you are removing one of those, the rest would be made up basically.
It’s easy to have discussions when I’m not being called a racist nazi teenager hillbilly redneck. Which is crazy bc I think I’m pretty reasonable and have relatively moderate views on most things.
I don’t know anything about them, but every claim had a source. Glad I could humor you.
