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

[boogers]

That’s the McDonald’s and kfc doing its thing

go go cholesterol! heart disease! poor hydration! senility! diarrhea!

 

[Captain Crunch]

I agree w/ Trump

 

[boogers]

if trump does anything positive for someone, its always by accident. see the 2018 farm bill that legalized delta-8 and THC-a for examples

the right person whispering in his ear could get him to do damn near anything. i'd love to have a janitor job in the white house. i'd tell him some ridiculous opposite day shyt to really get him going! he wants to be liked. his daddy did a number on him. thats easily exploited! i could manipulate the fukk out of that idiot.

 

[Scientific]

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.

The only objective response on here. Only thing I'll add on is that this creates a precedence on the slippery slope of the right to bear arms interpretation, once Dems get back into office.

Interpreting what the context of the 14th ammendment means, we also have to consider the context of what the 2nd was meant to be written under....we're not fending off the British crown.

 

[TheJet]

It starts somewhere...I'm just waiting for that " we've secured nice housing for black Americans ....over in Ghana" shoe to drop

 

[Premeditated]

Trump knows how simple alot of you are. he purposely threw bone out there to go get fetch by a certain delineating community to get distracted while he continues rolling back everything and law that can disenfranchise black folks even more

 

[Json]

A broken clock….

So he gonna apply that same logic to the second amendment right?

 

[Left.A1]

- Bauucee is right y'alls, gives hims hims credits

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

No lies.

How do you so easily fall for her insidious tactics? I see @TripleAgent dapped this too.

The Constitution, as originally written, not only tolerated slavery but codified it. The 3/5ths Compromise, the Fugitive Slave Clause, and the lack of federal protections for Black people reflected an intent to uphold white supremacy. Under an originalist interpretation, the Constitution would offer no protections to Black Americans. Coulter's claims are wildly dishonest because the very cases she cites expanded civil rights for Black Americans by using the 14th Amendment to fight racial discrimination. But the originalism she champions would gut those protections since, at the time of the Constitution's framing, we weren't even considered citizens, let alone deserving of equal protection. Originalism would roll back the progress these rulings represent, hurting us the most. Coulter isn't defending us, she's weaponizing our history to attack immigrants, while pushing a legal philosophy that undermines civil rights. Come on, man. Open your eyes.

 

[GunRanger]

The case that established birtright citizenship for all was an Asian man

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[that guy]

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

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.

You’re trying to force your argument to be correct breh. This is basic US reconstruction era history. Even going by the except you posted, it says they contemplated the ramifications of the law possibly being extended to Chinese. That doesn’t change the fact that the amendment was created to protect the rights of black Americans.

14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868)

EnlargeDownload Link Citation: The House Joint Resolution Proposing the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, June 16, 1866; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789-1999; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives. View All Pages in the National...

www.archives.gov

Following the Civil War, Congress submitted to the states three amendments as part of its Reconstruction program to guarantee equal civil and legal rights to Black citizens. A major provision of the 14th Amendment was to grant citizenship to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States,” thereby granting citizenship to formerly enslaved people.

 

[2Quik4UHoes]

How do you so easily fall for her insidious tactics? I see @TripleAgent dapped this too.

The Constitution, as originally written, not only tolerated slavery but codified it. The 3/5ths Compromise, the Fugitive Slave Clause, and the lack of federal protections for Black people reflected an intent to uphold white supremacy. Under an originalist interpretation, the Constitution would offer no protections to Black Americans. Coulter's claims are wildly dishonest because the very cases she cites expanded civil rights for Black Americans by using the 14th Amendment to fight racial discrimination. But the originalism she champions would gut those protections since, at the time of the Constitution's framing, we weren't even considered citizens, let alone deserving of equal protection. Originalism would roll back the progress these rulings represent, hurting us the most. Coulter isn't defending us, she's weaponizing our history to attack immigrants, while pushing a legal philosophy that undermines civil rights. Come on, man. Open your eyes.

shyt is crazy, read books yall….

We pride ourselves on being hip but so many among us are totally fine with getting scammed so thoroughly. I’m honestly disappointed, all our elders ain’t dead yet get some game on this cac racism shyt.

 

[Wild self]

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

Yep. One step closer back to slavery. How do people NOT see that play??

 

[Wild self]

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.

Thatt fast food diet will soon do him in. What 80 year old do you know est McDonald's everyday?

 

[Wargames]

You’re trying to force your argument to be correct breh. This is basic US reconstruction era history. Even going by the except you posted, it says they contemplated the ramifications of the law possibly being extended to Chinese. That doesn’t change the fact that the amendment was created to protect the rights of black Americans.

14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: Civil Rights (1868)

EnlargeDownload Link Citation: The House Joint Resolution Proposing the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, June 16, 1866; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789-1999; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives. View All Pages in the National...

www.archives.gov

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/RL33079.pdf

Check page 6 & 7. They didn’t contemplate they worded it specifically to create birthright citizenship for everyone.

It’s a wrong premise. The people who created the 14th amendment would be the democrats of today. They were surprisingly inclusive for their time.