Trump says the 14th amendment was for children of slaves not illegal immigrants

[Traveler]

He's kinda right. The 14th was enacted in 1866. At that time the US did not have any immigration laws, so anyone could come over and be a US citizen. At the time it was enacted no one thought of immigration. The first immigration law was in 1875 and that was targeted at the Chinese. most of the immigration law from that point until 1917 was directed mainly at Chinese and criminals. In 1917 we implemented more strict immigration laws and then again in 1924. The problem is no one really put much thought into the 14th Amendment when they passed these laws and birthright citizenship was never really addressed.

Birthright Citizenship is pretty much only a western hemisphere thing. Most of other countries outside of that have limits or say that you are a citizen of where your parents are citizens. I think that makes sense for more developed countries. I think it is time to closse that loophole, but I don't think the country has the will to modify the amendment because one party or the other will try to put unacceptable language into it to shoehorn other unpopular ideas, so it looks like we are stuck with me.

Oh and fukk Trump.

 

[Wild self]

No lies.

@Cat piss martini @DetroitEWarren

You believe this? Or are they c00ns?

 

[that guy]

It’s not correct, the Supreme Court already went over this during 1898.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Just cause the orange cocksucker is repeating something you want to hear doesn’t make it law.

First of all, relax with the sassiness. I don’t want to hear about cock and trump in the same sentence

You don’t know what you’re arguing. There’s a difference between an interpretation of the constitution and the spirit and context in which it was written at the time.

For example, black people were slaves at the time of the establishment of the constitution. However, when black people became citizens we are afforded all of the rights that the constitution granted. That does not negate the fact that at the time of the ratification of the constitution, it was written in the context of laying out the rights of white American men. This is what landmark decisions are for. They’re updated interpretations of past laws.

In your example, the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark was a “landmark decision” because it afforded all minority groups the same birth right to US citizenship under the 14th amendment, either though at the time of its ratification, it was meant for black Americans.

Do you think they were thinking about protecting the rights of Chinese immigrants in 1866?

 

[that guy]

He's kinda right. The 14th was enacted in 1866. At that time the US did not have any immigration laws, so anyone could come over and be a US citizen. At the time it was enacted no one thought of immigration. The first immigration law was in 1875 and that was targeted at the Chinese. most of the immigration law from that point until 1917 was directed mainly at Chinese and criminals. In 1917 we implemented more strict immigration laws and then again in 1924. The problem is no one really put much thought into the 14th Amendment when they passed these laws and birthright citizenship was never really addressed.

Birthright Citizenship is pretty much only a western hemisphere thing. Most of other countries outside of that have limits or say that you are a citizen of where your parents are citizens. I think that makes sense for more developed countries. I think it is time to closse that loophole, but I don't think the country has the will to modify the amendment because one party or the other will try to put unacceptable language into it to shoehorn other unpopular ideas, so it looks like we are stuck with me.

Oh and fukk Trump.

You get it. Even though you literally said “fukk trump” they still think you gave him a “backhanded compliment”

 

[Justin Nitsuj]

you simple minded clowns are so easily impressed by this orange clown telling the truth about black americans, meanwhile ignoring the fact that he wants to make our lives worse than it already is.

 

[Snake316]

Oh boy Black MAGA is about to climax off of this

 

[Justin Nitsuj]

it’s funny how people sit up and happily accept what this clown tells y’all (even though it’s true), but call other people c00ns for not believing that all of us came from one damn continent, like these damn white folks taught y’all

 

[that guy]

The correct response to trumps comments is:

“He is correct that the 14th amendment was written for black Americans but, like the other amendments, the interpretation has since been updated through landmark decisions that more accurately reflect the more current social and political climate of America”

When you go full political shill and start arguing against basic US history or any other fact, you let right-wing extremist like trump live rent-free in your head.

 

[The Prince of All Saiyans]

TLR gonna hoist him over their shoulders now?

 

[Wargames]

First of all, relax with the sassiness. I don’t want to hear about cock and trump in the same sentence

You don’t know what you’re arguing. There’s a difference between an interpretation of the constitution and the spirit and context in which it was written at the time.

For example, black people were slaves at the time of the establishment of the constitution. However, when black people became citizens we are afforded all of the rights that the constitution granted. That does not negate the fact that at the time of the ratification of the constitution, it was written in the context of laying out the rights of white American men. This is what landmark decisions are for. They’re updated interpretations of past laws.

In your example, the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark was a “landmark decision” because it afforded all minority groups the same birth right to US citizenship under the 14th amendment, either though at the time of its ratification, it was meant for black Americans.

Do you think they were thinking about protecting the rights of Chinese immigrants in 1866?

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

Trumbull asserted that this was already true prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, but Senator Edgar Cowanof Pennsylvania disagreed, arguing that this was only true for the children of European immigrants.[30] Senator John Conness of California expressed support for the Amendment for giving a constitutional basis for birthright citizenship to all children born in the United States to any parentage (including Chinese noncitizen residents who do not intend to reside permanently in the United States), even though he (and others) thought it had already been guaranteed by the Act,[35] whereas Cowan opposed the Amendment (and Act), arguing that it would have the undesirable outcome of extending citizenship to the children of Chinese and Romani immigrants.[36]

Wikipedia search, shows they considered the Chinese getting citizenship with the language and in the end was in favor of it. They assumed it didn’t matter because why would a Chinese person want to stay in racist America. Kim Ark was a case that came up because someone Chinese decided they didnt want to go back and Supreme Court took the case to confirm what the framers wanted. Birthright Citizenship for everyone.

So you’re wrong. Trump is wrong. The very premise is wrong.

 

[DatBoiHawk]

So what if he ends it and then says we’ll since there’s no birthright citizenship anymore then black people are no longer citizens. Don’t act like he isn’t crazy enough to do it either

 

[RickyDiBiase]

it’s funny how people sit up and happily accept what this clown tells y’all (even though it’s true), but call other people c00ns for not believing that all of us came from one damn continent, like these damn white folks taught y’all

Everything they said about black people voting democrat was always projection.

 

[Art Barr]

Stop posting this c00n culture thief no talent bytch nikka.




Art Barr

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

So what if he ends it and then says we’ll since there’s no birthright citizenship anymore then black people are no longer citizens. Don’t act like he isn’t crazy enough to do it either

Naw breh tangibly speaking they right fr, something something broken clocks

 

[Scustin Bieburr]

Why does it sound like he's about to have a stroke

He's aged significantly since 2019.

He's also extremely old.

Because we live in a world of sheer evil and injustice he will probably live longer than kissinger did.

But there's still a possibility that he might actually have a heart attack and die. He doesn't sleep well, he has an awful diet, and he is constantly pissed off. I won't be surprised if he just develops full blown dementia worse than what reagan had in his second term. I think he has it and the media is editing him and his circle refuses to speak on it. When they cant hide it anymore theyll claim they had no idea.