Anchor baby law to be changed.

[Syriusly]

When the economy tanked in the United States during recession, there was a net reduction in the number of illegal immigrants in the United States.

Not because we stopped letting their kids get educated, but because there were no jobs for them.

Eliminate the employment of illegal immigrants and 90% of 'illegal immigration' is eliminated.

But instead- be distracted like the RW politicians want you to be- by whining about 'anchor babies'.

 

[Conservative65]

In the same light does the 14th say that illegals can sneak in and create citizens?......

It says that anyone born here IS a citizen, filthy spawn. Learn to read, filthy spawn.

When it was written, it didn't mean children born to those illegally here. Learn history dumbass.

You would have thought that they might have mentioned that rather than saying anyone born here subject to U.S. law is a U.S. citizen.

They said the right to owns guns shall not be infringed and all powers not specifically delegate to the federal government not prohibited to the States are reserved to the States yet you big government Liberals didn't understand that.

Thank you for conceding that the clear language of the Constitution makes children born in the United States citizens.

Not the intent of the Amendment you fucking retard. You must have been dropped on your head as a child.

 

[Conservative65]

When the economy tanked in the United States during recession, there was a net reduction in the number of illegal immigrants in the United States.

Not because we stopped letting their kids get educated, but because there were no jobs for them.

Eliminate the employment of illegal immigrants and 90% of 'illegal immigration' is eliminated.

But instead- be distracted like the RW politicians want you to be- by whining about 'anchor babies'.

Deport the pieces of shit and they can't be hired.

Blame it on someone other than the criminal border crossers. I say post armed guards at the border and drop them if they try to cross.

 

[Syriusly]

When the economy tanked in the United States during recession, there was a net reduction in the number of illegal immigrants in the United States.

Not because we stopped letting their kids get educated, but because there were no jobs for them.

Eliminate the employment of illegal immigrants and 90% of 'illegal immigration' is eliminated.

But instead- be distracted like the RW politicians want you to be- by whining about 'anchor babies'.

Deport the pieces of shit and they can't be hired.

Blame it on someone other than the criminal border crossers. I say post armed guards at the border and drop them if they try to cross.

Stop hiring them and they won't come and wont' stay.

And no need to find them and deport them.

Of course your solution is to kill people.

 

[Syriusly]

It says that anyone born here IS a citizen, filthy spawn. Learn to read, filthy spawn.

When it was written, it didn't mean children born to those illegally here. Learn history dumbass.

You would have thought that they might have mentioned that rather than saying anyone born here subject to U.S. law is a U.S. citizen.

They said the right to owns guns shall not be infringed and all powers not specifically delegate to the federal government not prohibited to the States are reserved to the States yet you big government Liberals didn't understand that.

Thank you for conceding that the clear language of the Constitution makes children born in the United States citizens.

Not the intent of the Amendment you fucking retard. You must have been dropped on your head as a child.

The intent is clear from the language of the 14th Amendment.

Even the chronically brain impaired like yourself should be able to read it- given enough time.

 

[Conservative65]

When the economy tanked in the United States during recession, there was a net reduction in the number of illegal immigrants in the United States.

Not because we stopped letting their kids get educated, but because there were no jobs for them.

Eliminate the employment of illegal immigrants and 90% of 'illegal immigration' is eliminated.

But instead- be distracted like the RW politicians want you to be- by whining about 'anchor babies'.

Deport the pieces of shit and they can't be hired.

Blame it on someone other than the criminal border crossers. I say post armed guards at the border and drop them if they try to cross.

Stop hiring them and they won't come and wont' stay.

And no need to find them and deport them.

Of course your solution is to kill people.

No need to find them if the invaders are handled before they can get in.

My answer is to defend the country against foreign invasions.

 

[Conservative65]

When it was written, it didn't mean children born to those illegally here. Learn history dumbass.

You would have thought that they might have mentioned that rather than saying anyone born here subject to U.S. law is a U.S. citizen.

They said the right to owns guns shall not be infringed and all powers not specifically delegate to the federal government not prohibited to the States are reserved to the States yet you big government Liberals didn't understand that.

Thank you for conceding that the clear language of the Constitution makes children born in the United States citizens.

Not the intent of the Amendment you fucking retard. You must have been dropped on your head as a child.

The intent is clear from the language of the 14th Amendment.

Even the chronically brain impaired like yourself should be able to read it- given enough time.

Intent is based on what those who wrote it thought not what you think it means.

Does the intent mean the illegal parents get to stay? Do you think the parents should stay if they are illegal?

 

[Syriusly]

When the economy tanked in the United States during recession, there was a net reduction in the number of illegal immigrants in the United States.

Not because we stopped letting their kids get educated, but because there were no jobs for them.

Eliminate the employment of illegal immigrants and 90% of 'illegal immigration' is eliminated.

But instead- be distracted like the RW politicians want you to be- by whining about 'anchor babies'.

Deport the pieces of shit and they can't be hired.

Blame it on someone other than the criminal border crossers. I say post armed guards at the border and drop them if they try to cross.

Stop hiring them and they won't come and wont' stay.

And no need to find them and deport them.

Of course your solution is to kill people.

No need to find them if the invaders are handled before they can get in.
.

Leaving 10 million here in the United States which will have every motivation to never return to their country of origin.

Great strategy for keeping illegal aliens here.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Try reading the piece I posted.

The article you posted linked to this
Was U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Wrongly Decided?

And that is the point. Wong Kim Ark has been interpreted to stand for birthright citizenship. Regardless of what the federalist blog my wish, the scotus is not going to overturn Kim Ark's holding that a child is a US citizen when born in the US to two non-US citizens, who retain legal status in their native country and evidence an intent (and in their cases the legal duty) to return there. Kim Ark and the 14th never contemplated "illegal immigration," even though the SW border was crossed and recrossed for generations.

Whether, the scotus would hold that a child is a citizen when born to two non-citizens illegally here is a citizen .... maybe that's a question. But you do correctly identify the words at issue "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US.

Any ruling can be reviewed at the Court's discretion. Should they determine that the language of the 14th in dispute has been erroneously or politically interpreted away from the original and intended meaning of the language, there could well be a major shift. Such an act would not be without precedent, and the Court certainly has the authority to reverse previous rulings it deems mistaken.

First, it is not an "act", and second, SCOTUS is already grounded that birth right citizenship is constitutional. That will not change.

Not an act? What English do you speak?

And yes, it could well change. There is no such thing as settled law, particularly where mistakes have been made.

SCOTUS does not pass an act, it opines on law. SCOTUS, theoretically, it rule differently, but the law is not there to do it, in my opinion.

I didn't say SCOTUS passes acts. The words act was used in the context of willful action.

Do your substitutions come to you as voices, or are you on a subscription service?

 

[Syriusly]

You would have thought that they might have mentioned that rather than saying anyone born here subject to U.S. law is a U.S. citizen.

They said the right to owns guns shall not be infringed and all powers not specifically delegate to the federal government not prohibited to the States are reserved to the States yet you big government Liberals didn't understand that.

Thank you for conceding that the clear language of the Constitution makes children born in the United States citizens.

Not the intent of the Amendment you fucking retard. You must have been dropped on your head as a child.

The intent is clear from the language of the 14th Amendment.

Even the chronically brain impaired like yourself should be able to read it- given enough time.

Intent is based on what those who wrote it thought not what you think it means.

Does the intent mean the illegal parents get to stay? Do you think the parents should stay if they are illegal?

The Constitution doesn't say anything about parents- why do you keep asking me about them?

The 14th Amendment of the Constitution says that children born in the United States are citizens- unless their parents are foreign diplomats, and thus not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

 

[Conservative65]

When the economy tanked in the United States during recession, there was a net reduction in the number of illegal immigrants in the United States.

Not because we stopped letting their kids get educated, but because there were no jobs for them.

Eliminate the employment of illegal immigrants and 90% of 'illegal immigration' is eliminated.

But instead- be distracted like the RW politicians want you to be- by whining about 'anchor babies'.

Deport the pieces of shit and they can't be hired.

Blame it on someone other than the criminal border crossers. I say post armed guards at the border and drop them if they try to cross.

Stop hiring them and they won't come and wont' stay.

And no need to find them and deport them.

Of course your solution is to kill people.

No need to find them if the invaders are handled before they can get in.
.

Leaving 10 million here in the United States which will have every motivation to never return to their country of origin.

Great strategy for keeping illegal aliens here.

I didn't say handle them if they go back. I said handle them if they come in. I don't care if they leave.

 

[Conservative65]

They said the right to owns guns shall not be infringed and all powers not specifically delegate to the federal government not prohibited to the States are reserved to the States yet you big government Liberals didn't understand that.

Thank you for conceding that the clear language of the Constitution makes children born in the United States citizens.

Not the intent of the Amendment you fucking retard. You must have been dropped on your head as a child.

The intent is clear from the language of the 14th Amendment.

Even the chronically brain impaired like yourself should be able to read it- given enough time.

Intent is based on what those who wrote it thought not what you think it means.

Does the intent mean the illegal parents get to stay? Do you think the parents should stay if they are illegal?

The Constitution doesn't say anything about parents- why do you keep asking me about them?

The 14th Amendment of the Constitution says that children born in the United States are citizens- unless their parents are foreign diplomats, and thus not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Afraid to answer? The answer to that question shows whether what you say about intent is what you truly believe or not.

I ask because it's as much a part of the situation as the kid. They don't simply stop existing because the kid is incorrectly granted citizenship.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Billy, billy, billy. LOL

At the very least there will have to be a scotus decision that would distinguish Wong Ark Kim from children born here to two parents neither of whom have legal status. And, frankly, I'm not sure that would be a bad thing.

Try reading the piece I posted.

The article you posted linked to this
Was U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Wrongly Decided?

And that is the point. Wong Kim Ark has been interpreted to stand for birthright citizenship. Regardless of what the federalist blog my wish, the scotus is not going to overturn Kim Ark's holding that a child is a US citizen when born in the US to two non-US citizens, who retain legal status in their native country and evidence an intent (and in their cases the legal duty) to return there. Kim Ark and the 14th never contemplated "illegal immigration," even though the SW border was crossed and recrossed for generations.

Whether, the scotus would hold that a child is a citizen when born to two non-citizens illegally here is a citizen .... maybe that's a question. But you do correctly identify the words at issue "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US.

Any ruling can be reviewed at the Court's discretion. Should they determine that the language of the 14th in dispute has been erroneously or politically interpreted away from the original and intended meaning of the language, there could well be a major shift. Such an act would not be without precedent, and the Court certainly has the authority to reverse previous rulings it deems mistaken.

Billy, there has to be a case or controversy. IF Texas actually passed a law saying "no birthright citizenship," then at least conceptually, the scotus might revisit Kim Ark and the application on the 14th. IF some local yahooos in Texas decide not to issue birth certificates, a federal court will have to enjoin them to stop violating the law or go to the hooskow, like Kim Davis did.

The problem would be this.

The 13 said slavery was illegal, and nobody was a slave anymore (with irrelevant exceptions). The 14th just said "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" The US stopped importing slaves in 1807, so every former slave was born here, although they weren't citizens when born because they were slaves.

So, again, you identified the issue: what's it mean in subject to the jurisdiction thereof. We had people who'd been born to non-citizens, who now became citizens cause they were born here subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

In Kim Ark, the guy's parents were never subject to our jurisdiction because the Chinese Exclusion Act(s) said they had to go home ... eventually. Kim Ark was a citizen, because he never gave allegiance to china and was beyond any doubt subject to our penal laws. Perhaps there's some distinction between him an anchor babies, but I wouldn't bet on it.

There are easier ways to dissuade illegal aliens.

The words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are the controversy.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Texas can't change the constitution .

Simple.

14th Amendment: why birthright citizenship change 'can't be done'

Texas cannot, but a SCOTUS ruling on the language of the amendment could return is to its original meaning, as did Heller for the 2A.

Yep, the activist conservatives can make the law up in 5-4 decisions. Funny, how real conservatives opposed activist judges and the new iteration of 21st Century conservatives like it when they like the ruling and piss and moan when they don't.

Correcting a mistake made later in the country's history is not activism.

Corrections are called "Constitutional Amendments"- which is your recourse to what you consider to be an incorrect law.

An amendment is not necessary to correct a mistake. SCOTUS may overturn its own decisions.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The haters and birthers can yell, puting it nicely, all the fuck they want, and it means nothing.

14th rules while opponent drools.

 

[Conservative65]

The haters and birthers can yell, puting it nicely, all the fuck they want, and it means nothing.

14th rules while opponent drools.

And you still call yourself a Republican? Fucking liar.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The article you posted linked to this
Was U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark Wrongly Decided?

And that is the point. Wong Kim Ark has been interpreted to stand for birthright citizenship. Regardless of what the federalist blog my wish, the scotus is not going to overturn Kim Ark's holding that a child is a US citizen when born in the US to two non-US citizens, who retain legal status in their native country and evidence an intent (and in their cases the legal duty) to return there. Kim Ark and the 14th never contemplated "illegal immigration," even though the SW border was crossed and recrossed for generations.

Whether, the scotus would hold that a child is a citizen when born to two non-citizens illegally here is a citizen .... maybe that's a question. But you do correctly identify the words at issue "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US.

Any ruling can be reviewed at the Court's discretion. Should they determine that the language of the 14th in dispute has been erroneously or politically interpreted away from the original and intended meaning of the language, there could well be a major shift. Such an act would not be without precedent, and the Court certainly has the authority to reverse previous rulings it deems mistaken.

First, it is not an "act", and second, SCOTUS is already grounded that birth right citizenship is constitutional. That will not change.

Not an act? What English do you speak? And yes, it could well change. There is no such thing as settled law, particularly where mistakes have been made.

SCOTUS does not pass an act, it opines on law. SCOTUS, theoretically, it rule differently, but the law is not there to do it, in my opinion.

I didn't say SCOTUS passes acts. The words act was used in the context of willful action. Do your substitutions come to you as voices, or are you on a subscription service?

Your intent when using "act" is quite clear, whereas your argument against anchor babies remains confused and murky.

 

[Syriusly]

When the economy tanked in the United States during recession, there was a net reduction in the number of illegal immigrants in the United States.

Not because we stopped letting their kids get educated, but because there were no jobs for them.

Eliminate the employment of illegal immigrants and 90% of 'illegal immigration' is eliminated.

But instead- be distracted like the RW politicians want you to be- by whining about 'anchor babies'.

Deport the pieces of shit and they can't be hired.

Blame it on someone other than the criminal border crossers. I say post armed guards at the border and drop them if they try to cross.

Stop hiring them and they won't come and wont' stay.

And no need to find them and deport them.

Of course your solution is to kill people.

No need to find them if the invaders are handled before they can get in.
.

Leaving 10 million here in the United States which will have every motivation to never return to their country of origin.

Great strategy for keeping illegal aliens here.

I didn't say handle them if they go back. I said handle them if they come in. I don't care if they leave.

You haven't really followed the subject much have you?

When the United States toughens border controls, illegals tend to stay.

Eliminate the jobs and they leave.

So why exactly are you opposed to ending the employment of illegals?

 

[Conservative65]

Deport the pieces of shit and they can't be hired.

Blame it on someone other than the criminal border crossers. I say post armed guards at the border and drop them if they try to cross.

Stop hiring them and they won't come and wont' stay.

And no need to find them and deport them.

Of course your solution is to kill people.

No need to find them if the invaders are handled before they can get in.
.

Leaving 10 million here in the United States which will have every motivation to never return to their country of origin.

Great strategy for keeping illegal aliens here.

I didn't say handle them if they go back. I said handle them if they come in. I don't care if they leave.

You haven't really followed the subject much have you?

When the United States toughens border controls, illegals tend to stay.

Eliminate the jobs and they leave.

So why exactly are you opposed to ending the employment of illegals?

Why are you opposed to answering the question about the parents staying or not staying?

I'm for punishing those who hire and the illegals they hire. You only want those who hire punished. Your answer to the parent question can clear that up if I'm incorrectly stating something.

 

[Syriusly]

Simple.

14th Amendment: why birthright citizenship change 'can't be done'

Texas cannot, but a SCOTUS ruling on the language of the amendment could return is to its original meaning, as did Heller for the 2A.

Yep, the activist conservatives can make the law up in 5-4 decisions. Funny, how real conservatives opposed activist judges and the new iteration of 21st Century conservatives like it when they like the ruling and piss and moan when they don't.

Correcting a mistake made later in the country's history is not activism.

Corrections are called "Constitutional Amendments"- which is your recourse to what you consider to be an incorrect law.

An amendment is not necessary to correct a mistake. SCOTUS may overturn its own decisions.

Yes- the Supreme Court could overturn Citizens United, and the Supreme Court could overturn Heller.

It is possible that the Supreme Court could change its mind.

But if you want to correct what you consider to be a mistake by the Supreme Court- the route to do more than just wish upon a star is by a Constitutional amendment.