Ending wide open birthright citizenship is valid
-
I didn't expect any of the right wingers to have any real defense of this, but even then, you've gone under my expectations.
Shit, at least cal just regurgitated some propaganda he was fed
-
I didn't expect any of the right wingers to have any real defense of this, but even then, you've gone under my expectations.
Shit, at least cal just regurgitated some propaganda he was fed
I didn't expect any of the right wingers to have any real defense of this, but even then, you've gone under my expectations.
Shit, at least cal just regurgitated some propaganda he was fed
Gonna be a long 12 yrs bitch.
Our musical works to date http://www.arielsatticmusic.com/ -
I didn't expect any of the right wingers to have any real defense of this, but even then, you've gone under my expectations.
Shit, at least cal just regurgitated some propaganda he was fed
Gonna be a long 12 yrs bitch.
-
That damn liberal, radical judge appointed by .... Checks notes ... Ronald Reagan
The Chasm between an 80's Liberal vs the current version of Liberal is MASSIVE.
Hell, back in the early 60's I'd have probably voted for Kennedy (know many conservatives that would / did).
After the '63 Coup, things changed - drastically.
Current Liberals are no where near what they were back then - they went totally Fascist / Socialist / Communist . . .
Hell, when Bernie Sanders calls out your standings, ya'll should stand up and take a look at WTF is going on . . . but you don't . . .
When the Election process gets fixed, and the true balance of things come too light, perhaps then a few more will wake up to what this Nation truly values, and that will adjust things further yet . . .
Truly interesting times . . . and the current trajectory looks promising . . .
-
That damn liberal, radical judge appointed by .... Checks notes ... Ronald Reagan
The Chasm between an 80's Liberal vs the current version of Liberal is MASSIVE.
Hell, back in the early 60's I'd have probably voted for Kennedy (know many conservatives that would / did).
After the '63 Coup, things changed - drastically.
Current Liberals are no where near what they were back then - they went totally Fascist / Socialist / Communist . . .
Hell, when Bernie Sanders calls out your standings, ya'll should stand up and take a look at WTF is going on . . . but you don't . . .
When the Election process gets fixed, and the true balance of things come too light, perhaps then a few more will wake up to what this Nation truly values, and that will adjust things further yet . . .
Truly interesting times . . . and the current trajectory looks promising . . .
The Chasm between an 80's Liberal vs the current version of Liberal is MASSIVE.
Hell, back in the early 60's I'd have probably voted for Kennedy (know many conservatives that would / did).
After the '63 Coup, things changed - drastically.
Current Liberals are no where near what they were back then - they went totally Fascist / Socialist / Communist . . .
Hell, when Bernie Sanders calls out your standings, ya'll should stand up and take a look at WTF is going on . . . but you don't . . .
When the Election process gets fixed, and the true balance of things come too light, perhaps then a few more will wake up to what this Nation truly values, and that will adjust things further yet . . .
Truly interesting times . . . and the current trajectory looks promising . . .
Ignoring the parts of your post that are spectacularly incorrect... What does your response have anything to do with a Reagan judge calling out MAGA unconstitutionalism?
-
That damn liberal, radical judge appointed by .... Checks notes ... Ronald Reagan
This is going to be elevated to SCOTUS, and I don't know about you, but I feel they could interpret it either way.
Interesting map, too. If I tried going to Europe, popped out a baby, and used it to claim free medical school for myself, not a single person would feel sorry for me when they deport me and my child back to Ohio.
-
That damn liberal, radical judge appointed by .... Checks notes ... Ronald Reagan
This is going to be elevated to SCOTUS, and I don't know about you, but I feel they could interpret it either way.
Interesting map, too. If I tried going to Europe, popped out a baby, and used it to claim free medical school for myself, not a single person would feel sorry for me when they deport me and my child back to Ohio.
This is going to be elevated to SCOTUS, and I don't know about you, but I feel they could interpret it either way.
Interesting map, too. If I tried going to Europe, popped out a baby, and used it to claim free medical school for myself, not a single person would feel sorry for me when they deport me and my child back to Ohio.
Ah yes, our completely impartial and non political SCOTUS. Can't wait for their wise and unbiased assessment of our country's laws....
If MAGA doesn't like it, amend it. Follow the process. Don't create a nonsense authoritarian executive order.
-
This is going to be elevated to SCOTUS, and I don't know about you, but I feel they could interpret it either way.
Interesting map, too. If I tried going to Europe, popped out a baby, and used it to claim free medical school for myself, not a single person would feel sorry for me when they deport me and my child back to Ohio.
Ah yes, our completely impartial and non political SCOTUS. Can't wait for their wise and unbiased assessment of our country's laws....
If MAGA doesn't like it, amend it. Follow the process. Don't create a nonsense authoritarian executive order.
Ah yes, our completely impartial and non political SCOTUS. Can't wait for their wise and unbiased assessment of our country's laws....If MAGA doesn't like it, amend it. Follow the process. Don't create a nonsense authoritarian executive order.
so, you can't refute what I posted in the op. You never explain any of your bitching with legit points. Read what I posted.
-
Ah yes, our completely impartial and non political SCOTUS. Can't wait for their wise and unbiased assessment of our country's laws....If MAGA doesn't like it, amend it. Follow the process. Don't create a nonsense authoritarian executive order.
so, you can't refute what I posted in the op. You never explain any of your bitching with legit points. Read what I posted.
so, you can't refute what I posted in the op. You never explain any of your bitching with legit points. Read what I posted.
Cal... This is another instance where the link you posted to prove your point (and probably didn't read) absolutely destroys the point you were trying to make. It's just a law forum, but read through that top answer. It very clearly lays it all out. It even references past cases regarding illegal immigrants, where the amendment was upheld.
You really need to actually read these links, or at least understand them better.
And no cal, no matter how much they scare you and no matter how much right wing media feeds you propaganda, undocumented immigrants in our country aren't an "invading army".
You know those invading armies, millions strong, that only kill about two dozen people, pay taxes in the land they're invading, and work the lowest level jobs in that land.
Give me a fucking break you scared, pathetic old man
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
so, you can't refute what I posted in the op. You never explain any of your bitching with legit points. Read what I posted.
Cal... This is another instance where the link you posted to prove your point (and probably didn't read) absolutely destroys the point you were trying to make. It's just a law forum, but read through that top answer. It very clearly lays it all out. It even references past cases regarding illegal immigrants, where the amendment was upheld.
You really need to actually read these links, or at least understand them better.
And no cal, no matter how much they scare you and no matter how much right wing media feeds you propaganda, undocumented immigrants in our country aren't an "invading army".
You know those invading armies, millions strong, that only kill about two dozen people, pay taxes in the land they're invading, and work the lowest level jobs in that land.
Give me a fucking break you scared, pathetic old man
Cal... This is another instance where the link you posted to prove your point (and probably didn't read) absolutely destroys the point you were trying to make. It's just a law forum, but read through that top answer. It very clearly lays it all out. It even references past cases regarding illegal immigrants, where the amendment was upheld.
You really need to actually read these links, or at least understand them better.
And no cal, no matter how much they scare you and no matter how much right wing media feeds you propaganda, undocumented immigrants in our country aren't an "invading army".
You know those invading armies, millions strong, that only kill about two dozen people, pay taxes in the land they're invading, and work the lowest level jobs in that land.
Give me a fucking break you scared, pathetic old man
Cal isn't as out of touch as you are on this.
This may be the number one reason Trump got elected. Economy a close second.
I think we know which side feeds lies and propaganda, don't keep pretending the left doesn't.
undocumented immigrants
We already defined what undocumented means. They are illegal aliens, that's why they are all getting deported. There's no word games here.
-
This is serious shit, you better go crawl under your little desk woody.
-
-
it may have to go to the Supreme Court, but the decision will end up supporting Pres Trump.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
the left loves to ignore qualification clauses in the Constitution. They FEEL like ignoring those clauses makes them FEEL happy in their leftist elitism.
The truth is:
""Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to individuals who are under the legal authority of the United States, meaning they must follow U.S. laws. This phrase is significant in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment, which establishes citizenship for those born in the U.S. unless they fall under specific exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats."
ILLEGALS are not under the legal authority of the United States. ILLEGALS are NOT RECOGNIZED as having come here with permission.
So, their children born here are still under the jurisdiction of the country they came from.
Furthermore:
"In the case of United States vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (a 6-2 decision), the Supreme Court wrote:
[T]he real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country."
*************
and....
*************
"
In short the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes three and only three groups of people:
-
Children born to foreign diplomats here on diplomatic business, who have diplomatic immunity to US Law;
-
Children of members of an invading army that has occupied and controlled some part of US territory, born on that occupied area, who are obviously not subject to US Law (which has rarely happened in the US, although Guam was occupied during WWII, and parts of Alaska, and small parts of Maine during the War of 1812); and
-
Members of Native American tribes, subject to the jurisdiction of their tribal governments, who do not pay US taxes. (This was true when the 14th amendment was passed, but it no longer is. See section below on the act that changed it in 1924.)"
***************************************************************************
So, the illegals iinvaded as enemies of our society, either violently, or by deliberate free ride dependency.
So,
I see it as ILLEGALS are not included in birthright citizenship. We'll see.
it may have to go to the Supreme Court, but the decision will end up supporting Pres Trump.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
it may have to go to the Supreme Court, but the decision will end up supporting Pres Trump.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
the left loves to ignore qualification clauses in the Constitution. They FEEL like ignoring those clauses makes them FEEL happy in their leftist elitism.
The truth is:
""Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to individuals who are under the legal authority of the United States, meaning they must follow U.S. laws. This phrase is significant in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment, which establishes citizenship for those born in the U.S. unless they fall under specific exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats."
ILLEGALS are not under the legal authority of the United States. ILLEGALS are NOT RECOGNIZED as having come here with permission.
So, their children born here are still under the jurisdiction of the country they came from.
Furthermore:
"In the case of United States vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (a 6-2 decision), the Supreme Court wrote:
[T]he real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country."
*************
and....
*************
"
In short the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes three and only three groups of people:
-
Children born to foreign diplomats here on diplomatic business, who have diplomatic immunity to US Law;
-
Children of members of an invading army that has occupied and controlled some part of US territory, born on that occupied area, who are obviously not subject to US Law (which has rarely happened in the US, although Guam was occupied during WWII, and parts of Alaska, and small parts of Maine during the War of 1812); and
-
Members of Native American tribes, subject to the jurisdiction of their tribal governments, who do not pay US taxes. (This was true when the 14th amendment was passed, but it no longer is. See section below on the act that changed it in 1924.)"
***************************************************************************
So, the illegals iinvaded as enemies of our society, either violently, or by deliberate free ride dependency.
So,
I see it as ILLEGALS are not included in birthright citizenship. We'll see.
Just looking at a dictionary definition of “jurisdiction”, and it simply means “the official power to make legal decisions and judgements.” Maybe l’m alone here, but l think it’s good to have jurisdiction over these folks. If we didn’t, it means they either have diplomatic immunity or they’re straight up enemies of the state and must be shot on sight or sent to Guantanamo or something.
You might be on board with mowing down a bunch of kids who were born here (but their parents weren’t), but l’m not sure the majority of Americans would be cool with that. I don’t think the majority of Americans would be cool with letting them do whatever they want either. Both things would create more problems than they solve.
We have to have jurisdiction over them if we are going to do normal things like prosecute them.
-
-
God Bless Pres Trump AND all his cabinet.
Tom Homan kicks ass.
-
it may have to go to the Supreme Court, but the decision will end up supporting Pres Trump.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
it may have to go to the Supreme Court, but the decision will end up supporting Pres Trump.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
the left loves to ignore qualification clauses in the Constitution. They FEEL like ignoring those clauses makes them FEEL happy in their leftist elitism.
The truth is:
""Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to individuals who are under the legal authority of the United States, meaning they must follow U.S. laws. This phrase is significant in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment, which establishes citizenship for those born in the U.S. unless they fall under specific exceptions, such as children of foreign diplomats."
ILLEGALS are not under the legal authority of the United States. ILLEGALS are NOT RECOGNIZED as having come here with permission.
So, their children born here are still under the jurisdiction of the country they came from.
Furthermore:
"In the case of United States vs Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (a 6-2 decision), the Supreme Court wrote:
[T]he real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country."
*************
and....
*************
"
In short the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excludes three and only three groups of people:
-
Children born to foreign diplomats here on diplomatic business, who have diplomatic immunity to US Law;
-
Children of members of an invading army that has occupied and controlled some part of US territory, born on that occupied area, who are obviously not subject to US Law (which has rarely happened in the US, although Guam was occupied during WWII, and parts of Alaska, and small parts of Maine during the War of 1812); and
-
Members of Native American tribes, subject to the jurisdiction of their tribal governments, who do not pay US taxes. (This was true when the 14th amendment was passed, but it no longer is. See section below on the act that changed it in 1924.)"
***************************************************************************
So, the illegals iinvaded as enemies of our society, either violently, or by deliberate free ride dependency.
So,
I see it as ILLEGALS are not included in birthright citizenship. We'll see.
Just looking at a dictionary definition of “jurisdiction”, and it simply means “the official power to make legal decisions and judgements.” Maybe l’m alone here, but l think it’s good to have jurisdiction over these folks. If we didn’t, it means they either have diplomatic immunity or they’re straight up enemies of the state and must be shot on sight or sent to Guantanamo or something.
You might be on board with mowing down a bunch of kids who were born here (but their parents weren’t), but l’m not sure the majority of Americans would be cool with that. I don’t think the majority of Americans would be cool with letting them do whatever they want either. Both things would create more problems than they solve.
We have to have jurisdiction over them if we are going to do normal things like prosecute them.
Just looking at a dictionary definition of “jurisdiction”, and it simply means “the official power to make legal decisions and judgements.” Maybe l’m alone here, but l think it’s good to have jurisdiction over these folks. If we didn’t, it means they either have diplomatic immunity or they’re straight up enemies of the state and must be shot on sight or sent to Guantanamo or something.
You might be on board with mowing down a bunch of kids who were born here (but their parents weren’t), but l’m not sure the majority of Americans would be cool with that. I don’t think the majority of Americans would be cool with letting them do whatever they want either. Both things would create more problems than they solve.
We have to have jurisdiction over them if we are going to do normal things like prosecute them.
A majority of Americans aren't on board with plenty of conservative policies (polls to show this). Conservatives just play the politics game much better, and now here we are.
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
-
Just looking at a dictionary definition of “jurisdiction”, and it simply means “the official power to make legal decisions and judgements.” Maybe l’m alone here, but l think it’s good to have jurisdiction over these folks. If we didn’t, it means they either have diplomatic immunity or they’re straight up enemies of the state and must be shot on sight or sent to Guantanamo or something.
You might be on board with mowing down a bunch of kids who were born here (but their parents weren’t), but l’m not sure the majority of Americans would be cool with that. I don’t think the majority of Americans would be cool with letting them do whatever they want either. Both things would create more problems than they solve.
We have to have jurisdiction over them if we are going to do normal things like prosecute them.
A majority of Americans aren't on board with plenty of conservative policies (polls to show this). Conservatives just play the politics game much better, and now here we are.
A majority of Americans aren't on board with plenty of conservative policies (polls to show this). Conservatives just play the politics game much better, and now here we are.
Yes that's why only democrats got elected recently, oh wait...
-
-
Just looking at a dictionary definition of “jurisdiction”, and it simply means “the official power to make legal decisions and judgements.” Maybe l’m alone here, but l think it’s good to have jurisdiction over these folks. If we didn’t, it means they either have diplomatic immunity or they’re straight up enemies of the state and must be shot on sight or sent to Guantanamo or something.
You might be on board with mowing down a bunch of kids who were born here (but their parents weren’t), but l’m not sure the majority of Americans would be cool with that. I don’t think the majority of Americans would be cool with letting them do whatever they want either. Both things would create more problems than they solve.
We have to have jurisdiction over them if we are going to do normal things like prosecute them.
A majority of Americans aren't on board with plenty of conservative policies (polls to show this). Conservatives just play the politics game much better, and now here we are.
A majority of Americans aren't on board with plenty of conservative policies (polls to show this). Conservatives just play the politics game much better, and now here we are.
we can guess where you get your polls.
Facebook Twitter Flipboard Rasmussen polling, one of the more accurate pollsters from the 2024 presidential election, had revealed that most Americans favor putting an end to birthright citizenship to end anchor babies and make it a bit harder for illegals to become U.S. citizens. First of all, President-*******************************************
-
Just looking at a dictionary definition of “jurisdiction”, and it simply means “the official power to make legal decisions and judgements.” Maybe l’m alone here, but l think it’s good to have jurisdiction over these folks. If we didn’t, it means they either have diplomatic immunity or they’re straight up enemies of the state and must be shot on sight or sent to Guantanamo or something.
You might be on board with mowing down a bunch of kids who were born here (but their parents weren’t), but l’m not sure the majority of Americans would be cool with that. I don’t think the majority of Americans would be cool with letting them do whatever they want either. Both things would create more problems than they solve.
We have to have jurisdiction over them if we are going to do normal things like prosecute them.
A majority of Americans aren't on board with plenty of conservative policies (polls to show this). Conservatives just play the politics game much better, and now here we are.
A majority of Americans aren't on board with plenty of conservative policies (polls to show this). Conservatives just play the politics game much better, and now here we are.
Jan 20, 2025A majority of Americans favor President-elect Trump's proposal to end taxes on tips, according to a new survey. In the poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 54 ...*******************************************************Jan 8, 2025With support from a majority of black voters, Hispanics, and independents, the latest Rasmussen Reports survey shared with Secrets on Wednesday found that 61% approve of cutting the size of the ... -
Just looking at a dictionary definition of “jurisdiction”, and it simply means “the official power to make legal decisions and judgements.” Maybe l’m alone here, but l think it’s good to have jurisdiction over these folks. If we didn’t, it means they either have diplomatic immunity or they’re straight up enemies of the state and must be shot on sight or sent to Guantanamo or something.
You might be on board with mowing down a bunch of kids who were born here (but their parents weren’t), but l’m not sure the majority of Americans would be cool with that. I don’t think the majority of Americans would be cool with letting them do whatever they want either. Both things would create more problems than they solve.
We have to have jurisdiction over them if we are going to do normal things like prosecute them.
A majority of Americans aren't on board with plenty of conservative policies (polls to show this). Conservatives just play the politics game much better, and now here we are.
A majority of Americans aren't on board with plenty of conservative policies (polls to show this). Conservatives just play the politics game much better, and now here we are.
CNN stunned by Trump poll: ‘Very much unlike what we saw 8 years ago’
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login