₦airaland Forum

Welcome, Guest: Join Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 2,212,983 members, 4,831,754 topics. Date: Sunday, 24 March 2019 at 02:16 PM

No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship - Foreign Affairs - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Politics / Foreign Affairs / No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship (1028 Views)

Donald Trump To Terminate Birthright Citizenship / Malian Scaled 4 Storeys To Save Child In Paris, Met President, Gets Citizenship / Saudi Arabia Grants Citizenship To A Robot, Sophia (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (Reply) (Go Down)

No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by blueAgent(m): 10:13pm On Nov 19, 2018
No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not
Authorize Birthright Citizenship
It is clear that the framers of the Fourteenth
Amendment did not intend individuals not
subject to the full and complete jurisdiction of
the United States to be included as citizens.
By Juan Davalos Not one to shy away from controversy, former national security spokesman Michael Anton wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post, the response to which has been swift and furious. He’s been called a racist (expletive), and a white nationalist whose argument is nothing but a fascist dribble and a disgraceful product of his “terrified xenophobia.” What did he advocate? An end to birthright citizenship, the policy of automatically granting citizenship to anyone born in U.S. territory, even those whose parents are citizens of foreign nations.
Anton argues that the Fourteenth Amendment
“clarified for the first time that federal citizenship precedes and supersedes its state-level counterpart,” and that it specified two criteria for citizenship: “birth or naturalization (i.e., lawful immigration), and being subject to U.S.
jurisdiction.” Birthright citizenship, he claims, is inherently self-contradictory, as it violates a basic tenet of social compact theory. Since it is unlikely that Congress will do anything about it, Anton argues President Trump should issue an executive order specifying “to federal agencies that the children of noncitizens are not citizens.”
Let’s Err on the Side of a Fair Reading
In the spirit of full disclosure, while I am not
Anton’s friend, I have met him more than once.
Additionally, I’m a PhD student at Hillsdale
College, for which Anton works. However, I will attempt what The Federalist writer David Marcus seems to have been unable to here, a
dispassionate assessment of the argument by
looking at the primary sources.
The controversy arising out of Anton’s article is two-fold. First, some, like Marcus, believe Anton wishes Trump to strip Americans, born of parents who are illegal immigrants, of their citizenship.
Although this is a possible reading of the
argument, it’s unlikely.
Accustomed to always err on the side of the most charitable interpretation, I took Anton’s argument to apply to future cases only. So his
recommended executive order would specify to federal agencies that the children of noncitizens are from this day forward not to be granted citizenship. It would be highly unusual for someone like Anton to support ex post facto laws.
The second issue of controversy, to which I will dedicate most of my attention, is to Anton’s claimvthat the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not believe their words to imply birthright citizenship. The debate surrounding the amendment was, as expected, quite extensive.
Is Anton Right about the Fourteenth
Amendment Debate?
Anton quotes Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan,
who proposed adding the citizenship clause of
the amendment, as clarifying that it excludes
from citizenship “persons born in the United
States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” The problem with Anton’s quote is his addition of “[or].” Marcus concludes that this addition is to make the clause “say the opposite of what it actually said.”
This conclusion is uncalled for. Anton reads
Howard to be talking about two separate groups of people, both excluded from American citizenship by the amendment’s wording foreigners/aliens, and those who belong to
families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. To clarify this reading, he added “or” in brackets tovindicate his addition to Howard’s words. This interpretation is grammatically defensible. Both groups are expressed in two relative clauses with the same antecedent: “persons born in the United States.”
On the other hand, Marcus reads Howard as
saying that the foreigners/aliens excluded from citizenship are only those who belong to the families of ambassadors. In other words, instead of adding “or” to clarify the meaning of the sentence, Marcus essentially adds “that is, those.” Both Anton’s and Marcus’s readings are grammatically viable, so one must look at the context of the debate to determine whether birthright citizenship was meant. Fortunately for us, senatorial debates in the 1860s, unlike those of today, were very substantial and interesting.
The subject of the amendment was brought up for discussion to the Senate floor several times in the first few months of 1866. It is clear that in the earlier stages of the debate some of the main proponents of the amendment advocated some form of what we today call “birthright
citizenship.”
On January 30, 1866, Sen. Cowan asked whether the wording of the amendment would have “the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country.” Sen. Trumbull
responded, “undoubtedly.” Beware, however,
interposing our modern conceptions of
citizenship back into a debate in 1866. Before the Fourteenth Amendment, there was no federal concept of citizenship. If a state legally recognized Chinese and gypsies as residents of that state, the federal government had no say on the matter.
If True, Indians Would Have Been Citizens 56
Years Earlier
The final debate took place May 30. Howard
introduced the final version of the citizenship
clause as an addition to the Fourteenth
Amendment declaring that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” The addition immediately met resistance and introduced a lengthy debate to determine who would and would not be granted citizenship by that clause.
The fear that the clause would extend citizenship to Indians (Native Americans) dominated most of the debate. The Senate considered whether to add “excluding Indians not taxed,” after “subject to
the jurisdiction thereof.” Howard denied this was needed, because Indians were regarded as “being quasi foreign nations.”
The rest of the debate concerned whether this
new addition was a needed clarification. The
dispute was not whether they should include
Indians as citizens, but whether the additional
phrase was needed to clarify that Indians would be excluded. In other words, they all agreed on the exclusion, but wanted to make sure it was clear.
Sen. Doolittle immediately brought up the Indian question, followed by Sen. Cowan, who went on to question the breadth and length of citizenship,
insisting once again that Chinese immigrants and gypsies are like foreign travelers. They may be entitled “to the protection of the laws […]; but not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word.” His remarks were dismissed because no one was concerned with a Chinese or gipsy “invasion.”
The pressing concern was that of Indian
citizenship.
Given earlier debates, Marcus’s reading of
Howard’s above quote is perhaps more likely, or perhaps Howard was intentionally ambiguous as he admittedly hoped the question was not in need of “any further elucidation.” However,
regardless of Howard’s intentions, the debate
over Indian citizenship and the reasons for why it was excluded from the wording of the clause is illuminating for our understanding of what constitutes and what doesn’t constitute “birthright citizenship.”
The Key Phrase: ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction
Thereof’ Howard and Trumbull see the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as key in determining the limits of citizenship. In a response to Anton in the Washington Post,
Elizabeth Wydra dismisses the importance of this phrase as a fixation of those who “deny the plain meaning of the citizenship clause.”
However, the meaning of this phrase was the
central topic of debate precisely because it
qualified who was to be considered a citizen in
the citizenship clause. It is this phrase that made it clear that Indians were not included because even though they were born on American soil,
they were not under the full and complete
jurisdiction of the United States.
For Sen. Trumbull, “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens.” Senator Johnson agreed, stating that he knows “of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”
Jurisdiction, says Sen. Howard, ‘ought to be
construed so as to imply a full and complete
jurisdiction on the part of the United States.’
Jurisdiction, says Sen. Howard, “ought to be
construed so as to imply a full and complete
jurisdiction on the part of the United States,
coextensive in all respects with the constitutional
power of the United States […], that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” In other words, the citizenship clause does not cover those who are not under the United States’ full and complete jurisdiction.
Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by blueAgent(m): 10:17pm On Nov 19, 2018
Williams clarifies this point at the end of the
debate. “In one sense,” he says, “all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
[they are still expected to obey the laws of the
land and be punished for breaking them], but
they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States in every sense [they are still subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign government to which they owe allegiance].”
Two-thirds of the senators present for the vote
agreed that no further clarification was needed to make sure the amendment excluded Indians.
Only those under the full and complete
jurisdiction of the United States are included in the clause. The fact that this amendment did not authorize birthright citizenship as it exists today is demonstrated further by the fact that Native Americans did not gain U.S. citizenship en masse when this amendment passed, in 1868, but 56 years later, with an act of Congress.
Regardless of whether we should have birthright citizenship today or not, it is clear that the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not intend individuals not subject to the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States to be included as citizens. It is hard to believe that they would have accepted our modern conception of “birthright citizenship,” in which any person, regardless of whether they are in the country legally, and regardless of their parents’ citizenship, can claim U.S. citizenship.
It is clear that individuals within the territory of the United States, under a tourist or student visa, or who have crossed the border illegally, are not under the full and complete jurisdiction of the United States, but are still under the jurisdiction, at least in part, of a foreign nation. Juan E. Dávalos is a Ph.D. student at the Van
Andel School of Statesmanship at Hillsdale
College where he served as a Winston S. Churchill fellow. He holds an M.A. in philosophy of religion and ethics from Biola University. Born and raised in Ecuador, Juan became a U.S. citizen in 2011.


www.thefederalist.com/2018/07/23/no-fourteenth-amendment-not-authorize-birthright-citizenship/

1 Like

Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by KanwuliaExtra: 10:45pm On Nov 19, 2018
Oh yes o!
Fire on my dear TRUMP! grin
Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by immhotep: 10:49pm On Nov 19, 2018
blueAgent:

No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not
Authorize Birthright Citizenship
It is clear that the framers of the Fourteenth
Amendment did not intend individuals not
subject to the full and complete jurisdiction of
the United States to be included as citizens.
By Juan Davalos Not one to shy away from controversy, former national security spokesman Michael Anton wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post, the response to which has been swift and furious. He’s been called a racist (expletive), and a white nationalist whose argument is nothing but a fascist dribble and a disgraceful product of his “terrified xenophobia.” What did he advocate? An end to birthright citizenship, the policy of automatically granting citizenship to anyone born in U.S. territory, even those whose parents are citizens of foreign nations.
Anton argues that the Fourteenth Amendment
“clarified for the first time that federal citizenship precedes and supersedes its state-level counterpart,” and that it specified two criteria for citizenship: “birth or naturalization (i.e., lawful immigration), and being subject to U.S.
jurisdiction.” Birthright citizenship, he claims, is inherently self-contradictory, as it violates a basic tenet of social compact theory. Since it is unlikely that Congress will do anything about it, Anton argues President Trump should issue an executive order specifying “to federal agencies that the children of noncitizens are not citizens.”
Let’s Err on the Side of a Fair Reading
In the spirit of full disclosure, while I am not
Anton’s friend, I have met him more than once.
Additionally, I’m a PhD student at Hillsdale
College, for which Anton works. However, I will attempt what The Federalist writer David Marcus seems to have been unable to here, a
dispassionate assessment of the argument by
looking at the primary sources.
The controversy arising out of Anton’s article is two-fold. First, some, like Marcus, believe Anton wishes Trump to strip Americans, born of parents who are illegal immigrants, of their citizenship.
Although this is a possible reading of the
argument, it’s unlikely.
Accustomed to always err on the side of the most charitable interpretation, I took Anton’s argument to apply to future cases only. So his
recommended executive order would specify to federal agencies that the children of noncitizens are from this day forward not to be granted citizenship. It would be highly unusual for someone like Anton to support ex post facto laws.
The second issue of controversy, to which I will dedicate most of my attention, is to Anton’s claimvthat the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment did not believe their words to imply birthright citizenship. The debate surrounding the amendment was, as expected, quite extensive.
Is Anton Right about the Fourteenth
Amendment Debate?
Anton quotes Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan,
who proposed adding the citizenship clause of
the amendment, as clarifying that it excludes
from citizenship “persons born in the United
States who are foreigners, aliens, [or] who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” The problem with Anton’s quote is his addition of “[or].” Marcus concludes that this addition is to make the clause “say the opposite of what it actually said.”
This conclusion is uncalled for. Anton reads
Howard to be talking about two separate groups of people, both excluded from American citizenship by the amendment’s wording foreigners/aliens, and those who belong to
families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. To clarify this reading, he added “or” in brackets tovindicate his addition to Howard’s words. This interpretation is grammatically defensible. Both groups are expressed in two relative clauses with the same antecedent: “persons born in the United States.”
On the other hand, Marcus reads Howard as
saying that the foreigners/aliens excluded from citizenship are only those who belong to the families of ambassadors. In other words, instead of adding “or” to clarify the meaning of the sentence, Marcus essentially adds “that is, those.” Both Anton’s and Marcus’s readings are grammatically viable, so one must look at the context of the debate to determine whether birthright citizenship was meant. Fortunately for us, senatorial debates in the 1860s, unlike those of today, were very substantial and interesting.
The subject of the amendment was brought up for discussion to the Senate floor several times in the first few months of 1866. It is clear that in the earlier stages of the debate some of the main proponents of the amendment advocated some form of what we today call “birthright
citizenship.”
On January 30, 1866, Sen. Cowan asked whether the wording of the amendment would have “the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country.” Sen. Trumbull
responded, “undoubtedly.” Beware, however,
interposing our modern conceptions of
citizenship back into a debate in 1866. Before the Fourteenth Amendment, there was no federal concept of citizenship. If a state legally recognized Chinese and gypsies as residents of that state, the federal government had no say on the matter.
If True, Indians Would Have Been Citizens 56
Years Earlier
The final debate took place May 30. Howard
introduced the final version of the citizenship
clause as an addition to the Fourteenth
Amendment declaring that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” The addition immediately met resistance and introduced a lengthy debate to determine who would and would not be granted citizenship by that clause.
The fear that the clause would extend citizenship to Indians (Native Americans) dominated most of the debate. The Senate considered whether to add “excluding Indians not taxed,” after “subject to
the jurisdiction thereof.” Howard denied this was needed, because Indians were regarded as “being quasi foreign nations.”
The rest of the debate concerned whether this
new addition was a needed clarification. The
dispute was not whether they should include
Indians as citizens, but whether the additional
phrase was needed to clarify that Indians would be excluded. In other words, they all agreed on the exclusion, but wanted to make sure it was clear.
Sen. Doolittle immediately brought up the Indian question, followed by Sen. Cowan, who went on to question the breadth and length of citizenship,
insisting once again that Chinese immigrants and gypsies are like foreign travelers. They may be entitled “to the protection of the laws […]; but not a citizen in the ordinary acceptation of the word.” His remarks were dismissed because no one was concerned with a Chinese or gipsy “invasion.”
The pressing concern was that of Indian
citizenship.
Given earlier debates, Marcus’s reading of
Howard’s above quote is perhaps more likely, or perhaps Howard was intentionally ambiguous as he admittedly hoped the question was not in need of “any further elucidation.” However,
regardless of Howard’s intentions, the debate
over Indian citizenship and the reasons for why it was excluded from the wording of the clause is illuminating for our understanding of what constitutes and what doesn’t constitute “birthright citizenship.”
The Key Phrase: ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction
Thereof’ Howard and Trumbull see the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as key in determining the limits of citizenship. In a response to Anton in the Washington Post,
Elizabeth Wydra dismisses the importance of this phrase as a fixation of those who “deny the plain meaning of the citizenship clause.”
However, the meaning of this phrase was the
central topic of debate precisely because it
qualified who was to be considered a citizen in
the citizenship clause. It is this phrase that made it clear that Indians were not included because even though they were born on American soil,
they were not under the full and complete
jurisdiction of the United States.
For Sen. Trumbull, “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens.” Senator Johnson agreed, stating that he knows “of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”
Jurisdiction, says Sen. Howard, ‘ought to be
construed so as to imply a full and complete
jurisdiction on the part of the United States.’
Jurisdiction, says Sen. Howard, “ought to be
construed so as to imply a full and complete
jurisdiction on the part of the United States,
coextensive in all respects with the constitutional
power of the United States […], that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.” In other words, the citizenship clause does not cover those who are not under the United States’ full and complete jurisdiction.
Blame your white ancestors who hustled to import millions of Africans into AmeriKkka.
Diversity is now your strength.
Even Thomas Jefferson race-mixed with his black mistress Sally Hemmings.
Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by Duru1(m): 11:09pm On Nov 19, 2018
immhotep:

Blame your white ancestors who hustled to import millions of Africans into AmeriKkka.
Diversity is now your strength.
Even Thomas Jefferson race-mixed with his black mistress Sally Hemmings.

You cannot be able to make a logical argument if you believed that human being is either Black or White.
Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by Martinez19(m): 11:12pm On Nov 19, 2018
I told the democrat sheeples a long time ago but they wouldn't listen.

2 Likes 1 Share

Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by immhotep: 12:05am On Nov 20, 2018
Duru1:


You cannot be able to make a logical argument if you believed that human being is either Black or White.
Guy.
Those who kidnapped Africans to America must calm down and integrate those Africans into the American society.

1 Like

Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by Bannylove13: 4:56am On Nov 20, 2018
Trump making lots of sense..
Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by blueAgent(m): 5:48pm On Nov 20, 2018
immhotep:

Blame your white ancestors who hustled to import millions of Africans into AmeriKkka.
Diversity is now your strength.
Even Thomas Jefferson race-mixed with his black mistress Sally Hemmings.


Am not white secondly stop deciving yourself diversity is not US strenght stop parroting PC and liberal crap talk.
Everybody claims that US is great becos of diversity but they fail to understand that what made US great was immigration of White Europeans not just anybody from any shithole country.

1 Like

Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by blueAgent(m): 5:53pm On Nov 20, 2018
Martinez19:
I told the democrat sheeples a long time ago but they wouldn't listen.


I concur.
Democrats and liberals are deprived of common sense and logic.
Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by blueAgent(m): 5:55pm On Nov 20, 2018
immhotep:

Guy.
Those who kidnapped Africans to America must calm down and integrate those Africans into the American society.


For your information it was Africans that kidnaped there fellow Africans and sold them to the Whites. secondly Slavery was existing in Africa between Arabs and Africans hundred of years before Whites came to Africa.

1 Like

Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by blueAgent(m): 5:57pm On Nov 20, 2018
Bannylove13:
Trump making lots of sense..

True.
Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by immhotep: 5:58pm On Nov 20, 2018
blueAgent:



Am not white secondly stop deciving yourself diversity is not US strenght stop parroting PC and liberal crap talk.
Everybody claims that US is great becos of diversity but they fail to understand that what made US great was immigration of White Europeans not just anybody from any shithole country.
Stop complaining.
Black Americans, Asians and Latinos will never leave the USA.
Sit back and enjoy diversity.
Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by immhotep: 5:59pm On Nov 20, 2018
blueAgent:



For your information it was Africans that kidnaped there fellow Africans and sold them to the Whites. secondly Slavery was existing in Africa between Arabs and Africans hundred of years before Whites came to Africa.

Yeah but the whites voluntarily bought the slaves and took the trouble to ship millions of them to USA.

Long live diversity and mulatto children grin
Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by blueAgent(m): 6:17pm On Nov 20, 2018
immhotep:

Yeah but the whites voluntarily bought the slaves and took the trouble to ship millions of them to USA.

Long live diversity and mulatto children grin

True but this is no justification for diversity.
Even God supports nationalism.

Deuteronomy 32:8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

Acts 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

No nation can survive with diversity.

1 Like

Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by immhotep: 6:41pm On Nov 20, 2018
blueAgent:


True but this is no justification for diversity.
Even God supports nationalism.

Deuteronomy 32:8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

Acts 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

No nation can survive with diversity.

USA founding father Thomas Jefferson race mixed with his black mistress Sally Hemmings.
Thomas Jefferson believed in diversity and now he has hundreds of mulatto descendants.
White Americans need to imitate their founding father Thomas Jefferson.
Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by Martinez19(m): 6:53pm On Nov 20, 2018
blueAgent:



I concur.
Democrats and liberals are deprived of common sense and logic.
Don't mind them. Their hatred for Trump comes first even if it's at the expense of reasoning.
Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by panafrican(m): 3:24am On Nov 21, 2018
OK
Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by blueAgent(m): 7:43pm On Nov 21, 2018
Martinez19:
Don't mind them. Their hatred for Trump comes first even if it's at the expense of reasoning.


True. the funny thing is that if illegal migration is not checked most of the Demorats and liberals will become victims of its negative effects.

1 Like

Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by Martinez19(m): 7:48pm On Nov 21, 2018
blueAgent:



True. the funny thing is that if illegal migration is not checked most of the Demorats and liberals will become victims of its negative effects.
True. They can't see it because they are blinded by their lust for power. More illegal immigrants mean more votes for democrats because of the welfare democrats give them. grin
Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by blueAgent(m): 7:49pm On Nov 21, 2018
immhotep:

USA founding father Thomas Jefferson race mixed with his black mistress Sally Hemmings.
Thomas Jefferson believed in diversity and now he has hundreds of mulatto descendants.
White Americans need to imitate their founding father Thomas Jefferson.



I far as i know this incident is still been debated wheather it happened or not secondly tjis does not justify diversity.


for your information Jefferson was a known racists and like some other Slave holders the slept with their female slaves who gave birtj to Children who where still seem as slaves evem by their white fathers.


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1996/10/thomas-jefferson-radical-and-racist/376685/


www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-on-slavery.php


https://www.poplarforest.org/learn/thomas-jeffersons-life-and-times/the-enslaved-people-of-poplar-forest/jeffersons-views-on-slavery/


https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/opinion/the-real-thomas-jefferson.html
Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by blueAgent(m): 7:53pm On Nov 21, 2018
Martinez19:
True. They can't see it because they are blinded by their lust for power. More illegal immigrants mean more votes for democrats because of the welfare democrats give them. grin

True.

But i think it goes far deeper than votes. most of the Demorats are just sheepie used by the elite to foster One World Order by promoting a World where there is no border race or religeon.
Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by blueAgent(m): 7:55pm On Nov 21, 2018
Martinez19:
True. They can't see it because they are blinded by their lust for power. More illegal immigrants mean more votes for democrats because of the welfare democrats give them. grin

This is one example of the consquences of illegal immigration or open border.


Illegal immigrant killed 3 after
'sanctuary' release from custody, ICE says

https://www.foxnews.com/us/undocumented-immigrant-released-from-jail-charged-in-triple-murder?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A%20foxnews%2Fnational%20%28Internal%20-%20US%20Latest%20-%20Text%29
Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by Martinez19(m): 8:09pm On Nov 21, 2018
blueAgent:


True.

But i think it goes far deeper than votes. most of the Demorats are just sheepie used by the elite to foster One World Order by promoting a World where there is no border race or religeon.
That's also very possible given their immense desire for socialism. These guys don't mean we'll for America.
Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by immhotep: 8:47pm On Nov 21, 2018
blueAgent:



I far as i know this incident is still been debated wheather it happened or not secondly tjis does not justify diversity.


for your information Jefferson was a known racists and like some other Slave holders the slept with their female slaves who gave birtj to Children who where still seem as slaves evem by their white fathers.


https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1996/10/thomas-jefferson-radical-and-racist/376685/


www.let.rug.nl/usa/presidents/thomas-jefferson/jefferson-on-slavery.php


https://www.poplarforest.org/learn/thomas-jeffersons-life-and-times/the-enslaved-people-of-poplar-forest/jeffersons-views-on-slavery/


https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/opinion/the-real-thomas-jefferson.html
Thomas Jefferson was a race-mixer.
You need to imitate your ancestor Thomas Jefferson by race-mixing with black people and producing more diversity for America.

"Jefferson's Children: The Story of One American Family" >>>>

https://www.amazon.com/Jeffersons-Children-Story-American-Family/dp/0375821686/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1528820151&sr=8-1&keywords=jeffersons+children
Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by blueAgent(m): 5:36am On Nov 23, 2018
immhotep:

Thomas Jefferson was a race-mixer.
You need to imitate your ancestor Thomas Jefferson by race-mixing with black people and producing more diversity for America.

"Jefferson's Children: The Story of One American Family" >>>>

https://www.amazon.com/Jeffersons-Children-Story-American-Family/dp/0375821686/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1528820151&sr=8-1&keywords=jeffersons+children


you seem obessed about race mixing and diversity Jeffesson or any of the founding fathers never supported race mixing or diversity.
Prior to the immigration act of 1961 US encouraged immigrates from Europe only in fact was clearly stated in the consistution by the founding fathers that US is the land for free white men.
Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by blueAgent(m): 5:39am On Nov 23, 2018
immhotep:

Thomas Jefferson was a race-mixer.
You need to imitate your ancestor Thomas Jefferson by race-mixing with black people and producing more diversity for America.

"Jefferson's Children: The Story of One American Family" >>>>

https://www.amazon.com/Jeffersons-Children-Story-American-Family/dp/0375821686/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1528820151&sr=8-1&keywords=jeffersons+children


Can you show me any benefit of diversity?
Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by immhotep: 5:46am On Nov 23, 2018
blueAgent:



Can you show me any benefit of diversity?

1. "Why White Women Fantasize About Black Men"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIwzLuxTMIw&t=6s
2. "White Women Say How Much They LOVE Black Men!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swv-MTn96uY
3. "White girl explains why she likes black guys"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOKLd4Nv-8Q&t=1s
4. "Why Do White Girls Date Black Guys?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hIvY4uUPD4&t=13s?
5. "Blanda Upp"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCDMGu-xi30
6. White girl sings "once you go black you never go back":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSmw7Il2bos
7. Interracial couples: our stories.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-KyMHsx0W8
Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by immhotep: 5:47am On Nov 23, 2018
blueAgent:



you seem obessed about race mixing and diversity Jeffesson or any of the founding fathers never supported race mixing or diversity.
Prior to the immigration act of 1961 US encouraged immigrates from Europe only in fact was clearly stated in the consistution by the founding fathers that US is the land for free white men.
Thomas Jefferson was obsessed with race mixing.
I am just informing you
Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by blueAgent(m): 5:48am On Nov 23, 2018
Martinez19:
That's also very possible given their immense desire for socialism. These guys don't mean we'll for America.


True, they don't mean well for America and Europe.

Some might call it conspiracy theory just to discredit it but when you consider the evidences and facts you will observe it is the truth.
Even Trump is not the saviour many think he is he is part of the problem and elite. he was brought to create an impression that American votes count.

http://revolutionharry.blogspot.co.ke/2011/06/mass-immigration-and-new-tower-of-babel.html?m=1
Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by blueAgent(m): 5:50am On Nov 23, 2018
immhotep:
Thomas Jefferson was obsessed with race mixing. I am just informing you
You have no evidence about that just mere speculations.
Re: No, The Fourteenth Amendment Does Not Authorize Birthright Citizenship by blueAgent(m): 5:53am On Nov 23, 2018
immhotep:


1. "Why White Women Fantasize About Black Men"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIwzLuxTMIw&t=6s
2. "White Women Say How Much They LOVE Black Men!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swv-MTn96uY
3. "White girl explains why she likes black guys"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOKLd4Nv-8Q&t=1s
4. "Why Do White Girls Date Black Guys?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hIvY4uUPD4&t=13s?
5. "Blanda Upp"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCDMGu-xi30
6. White girl sings "once you go black you never go back":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSmw7Il2bos
7. Interracial couples: our stories.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-KyMHsx0W8



Trash.

You finally reveal your obession.

White Women who date black men are 12times more likely to die from domestic violence than other white women who date their own white men.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (Reply)

North Sudan And South Sudan Are At War!! / Kenya Female Political Aspirant With Seductive Poster / Zimbabwe Too Sweet Nigerians And Chinese Dont Want To Leave!!!!

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (0) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2019 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 278
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.