> I would support abolishing birthright citizenship under one condition.

wrote:

Was Australia wrong and racist in 1986 when they immediately ended birthright citizenship? Because too any 3rd world shytholer with a boat or plane ticket was securing Australian citizenship benefits by merely squatting out their newborn on Australian soil rather than at their home?

Since 1986 Australian law says one or both parents must be an Australian citizen for the child to be considered Australian.

Yes, they were wrong. Not sure if they were racist, but Australia is full of whytes so it is very possible it was for racist reasons.

Sockpuppet wrote:

We make it retroactive and remove citizenship from anybody who gained it under the 14th amendment and all of their descendants.

I don't think black people should have been given cititzenship, racist bagger!
\


What a fuqing idiot.

‘Australia: Why was birthright citizenship abolished?

The 1986 Amendment begs the question: what prompted the Australian parliament to abolish pure jus soli citizenship? The amendment was primarily catalysed by the 1985 case of Kioa v West where the government argued that jus soli citizenship was being abused to obtain an immigration advantage.

Kioa was a Tongan citizen who overstayed his student visa and subsequently had a daughter born in Australia. Kioa unsuccessfully argued that as an Australian citizen under the principle of jus soli, his daughter was entitled to a legitimate expectation of continued residence in Australia, despite the deportation order against her parents.
As a result of this high-profile case, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs at the time declared that jus soli citizenship was:

“a generosity in our law [that] can be exploited by visitors and illegal immigrants who have children born here in order to seek to achieve residence in Australia”.’



Somehow all of us on CI were alive in 1986 and never heard or cared one iota

For real though spanky... why do you think the freed slaves shouldn't have been given citizenship?

Spanky wrote:

I don't feel that way.

The right says that it only applied to black slaves.

I accept that conjecture on one condition:

We make it retroactive and remove citizenship from anybody who gained it under the 14th amendment and all of their descendants.

This obviously does not apply to black slaves since I am, under these conditions, agreeing with the right that the only people given this birthright citizenship were black slaves.

Glad I could clear that up for you.

They were 2/3rds of a citizen.

There's be no one here dipshyt

Spanky wrote:

Actually, that is a bit of a misnomer. Prior to the 14th they were not considered citizens, but were considered as 2/3rds of a member of the population for apportionment purposes.

Nonetheless, your comment is a non sequitur.

maybe I should post a screenshot of your original post on World Star Hip hop......along with your pic and address.

SamplesBoi wrote:

So, all blacks?

spanky_kkk.jpg

wrote:

maybe I should post a screenshot of your original post on World Star Hip hop......along with your pic and address.

Please don’t make threats to cause real world harm.

That is against our rules.

Thank you.

Whitey THINKS he’s being replaced.*

When

Whitey SHOULD be replaced.








* Bagger conspiracy theory.

wrote:

s
For real though spanky... why do you think the freed slaves shouldn't have been given citizenship?


"The right" (most normal people would say "the amendment" but spanky dropped out of highschool):
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Please note it doesn't say that the right only belongs to blacks/slaves or black slaves.

You're a moron spanky.

You aren’t too smart.

wrote:

I'm not the racist that said:

We make it retroactive and remove citizenship from anybody who gained it under the 14th amendment and all of their descendants.

That’s not a rebuttal.