Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not 100% certain it is the case that birthright citizenship applies to those who entered illegally. The closest thing I’ve seen is the Wong Kim Ark case. In that case, Arks parents were here LEGALLY, but still not naturalized citizens. This case went all the way up to the Supreme Court, with a 6-2 split decision, and this was a debate involving parents who were permitted entry, went back to China, tried to come back and were denied.Let me start off by saying I oppose Birthright Citizenship unless one parent is a US citizen but I am more opposed to Presidents acting like kings who think they can rule by an iron fist.
For YEARS we all railed against Obama's use of the executive pen and rightly so. Do not fall prey to that which you oppose simply because of a letter behind a mans name.
Today I heard Trump on the radio referring to Obama's Dream Act as the excuse for his threat to use the same method to alter the 14th amendment. An act that he Hope's the supreme court will overrule. Yet he wants you to cheer and clap at his own duplicity.
If you are a conservative ACT LIKE IT and stop looking the other way simply because you like Trump.
So the question is, does this same principle apply to parents who enter the country without that countries permission?
Many believe that subject to the jurisdiction thereof meant no other allegiance to another country. In the case of illegals, both they and the child do have an allegiance to their home country.
If an illegal couple has a kid here, moves back to China when the child is six months old and grows up there, that child is considered a Chinese citizen no matter where he was born. If war ever broke out between our countries, that child (now an adult) can infiltrate our country to do harm, and there is nothing we can do about it because the now adult has allegiance to the Chinese government.
Allegiance doesn’t matter to jurisdiction.
If the United States doesn’t have jurisdiction over an individual, then that individual can commit a crime in the US with immunity.
No reasonable person would seriously argue that simply because someone has allegiance to a foreign country, they could murder an American citizen and get away with it.
No, I never said that. Subject to the Jurisdiction Therein meant that they have no allegiance with another country period.
So in my scenario, let's say China wanted to sneak in a dirty bomb using this Chinese citizen of theirs who is (by our standards) an American citizen. Much easier to do being an American citizen than being a visitor of some kind. Or you can even use any country from the middle-east for that matter.
FIRST OFF: Trump has already proven himself to be COMPLETELY IGNORANT concerning how Amendments are instituted, or changed. It is the function of The US Congress to initiate Amendments, or to alter Amendments.
Did Trump say he was going to change the amendment? If that's what you think, you need to brush up on your comprehension skills.
Here; shove this up your ass & stop playing your shitty lying crap
Not only do your comprehension skills suffer, you're deaf besides.
THEN WTF do you think he said, Einstein?
OK; I'm sorry. I didn't realize your are using 'English as a FIFTH FVCKING LANGUAGE'
Not 100% certain it is the case that birthright citizenship applies to those who entered illegally. The closest thing I’ve seen is the Wong Kim Ark case. In that case, Arks parents were here LEGALLY, but still not naturalized citizens. This case went all the way up to the Supreme Court, with a 6-2 split decision, and this was a debate involving parents who were permitted entry, went back to China, tried to come back and were denied.Let me start off by saying I oppose Birthright Citizenship unless one parent is a US citizen but I am more opposed to Presidents acting like kings who think they can rule by an iron fist.
For YEARS we all railed against Obama's use of the executive pen and rightly so. Do not fall prey to that which you oppose simply because of a letter behind a mans name.
Today I heard Trump on the radio referring to Obama's Dream Act as the excuse for his threat to use the same method to alter the 14th amendment. An act that he Hope's the supreme court will overrule. Yet he wants you to cheer and clap at his own duplicity.
If you are a conservative ACT LIKE IT and stop looking the other way simply because you like Trump.
So the question is, does this same principle apply to parents who enter the country without that countries permission?
Many believe that subject to the jurisdiction thereof meant no other allegiance to another country. In the case of illegals, both they and the child do have an allegiance to their home country.
If an illegal couple has a kid here, moves back to China when the child is six months old and grows up there, that child is considered a Chinese citizen no matter where he was born. If war ever broke out between our countries, that child (now an adult) can infiltrate our country to do harm, and there is nothing we can do about it because the now adult has allegiance to the Chinese government.
Allegiance doesn’t matter to jurisdiction.
If the United States doesn’t have jurisdiction over an individual, then that individual can commit a crime in the US with immunity.
No reasonable person would seriously argue that simply because someone has allegiance to a foreign country, they could murder an American citizen and get away with it.
No, I never said that. Subject to the Jurisdiction Therein meant that they have no allegiance with another country period.
So in my scenario, let's say China wanted to sneak in a dirty bomb using this Chinese citizen of theirs who is (by our standards) an American citizen. Much easier to do being an American citizen than being a visitor of some kind. Or you can even use any country from the middle-east for that matter.
Allegiance has nothing to do with jurisdiction.
If any person of any citizenship commits a crime in the US, unless they have sovereign immunity, the US has the power to prosecute that person. That’s what jurisdiction means. Allegiance is irrelevant.
OK; I'm sorry. I didn't realize your are using 'English as a FIFTH FVCKING LANGUAGE'
Let me start off by saying I oppose Birthright Citizenship unless one parent is a US citizen but I am more opposed to Presidents acting like kings who think they can rule by an iron fist.
For YEARS we all railed against Obama's use of the executive pen and rightly so. Do not fall prey to that which you oppose simply because of a letter behind a mans name.
Today I heard Trump on the radio referring to Obama's Dream Act as the excuse for his threat to use the same method to alter the 14th amendment. An act that he Hope's the supreme court will overrule. Yet he wants you to cheer and clap at his own duplicity.
If you are a conservative ACT LIKE IT and stop looking the other way simply because you like Trump.
The real question is this:
Are you guys going to be pissed at Trump when he doesn’t issue the EO?
He said there were recordings of Comey. It was a lie. He slinked away like a little bitch. You guys ignored it.
He said Mueller was a jilted business partner. It was a lie. He slinked away like a little bitch. You guys ignored it.
He said he’d jail Hillary. It was a lie. He slinked away like a little bitch. You guys ignored it.
The threat to release the information about affairs of Congressmen, his Tax returns, his Military Parade, etc… All lies. All rapid withdraws from his statements.
Are you guys going to just accept another empty threat?
He said there were recordings of Comey. It was a lie.
Its not hypocrisy when the 14th amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to illegal anchor babies. Trump has the guts to correct this and force the SCOTUS to clarify the 14th amendment which is their job.
If you are a conservative ACT LIKE IT and stop looking the other way simply because you like Trump.
Trump is just setting up the legal scuffle on this. Part of Trump’s Comprehensive Illegal Immigration Reform Act
The 14th wasn't written to allow children of illegals to become US citizens, it's time to follow the Constitution as it is written and stop "interpreting" it to suit agendas.
I doubt an EO will hold up in the matter but it would open up the can of worms to allow it to be addressed by the courts. Gorusch and Kavanaugh are looking like sweet picks in that regard ...another reason Trump winning was so important
okHe said there were recordings of Comey. It was a lie.
He said nothing of the sort. He just gave a warning to Comey that he should hope there aren't recordings of their conversation.
To whit:
Donald J. TrumpVerified account @realDonaldTrump
James Comey better hope that there are no "tapes" of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!
5:26 AM - 12 May 2017
Who says it doesn't apply? You? Your Constitutional Law degree came from where?Its not hypocrisy when the 14th amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to illegal anchor babies. Trump has the guts to correct this and force the SCOTUS to clarify the 14th amendment which is their job.
If you are a conservative ACT LIKE IT and stop looking the other way simply because you like Trump.
The truth always comes out, you're a weak ass fake Conservative!!
Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).
This isn't the act of a King, it's action we never get from elected officials, quit being afraid of the truth and start expecting our elected officials to do just that, act!
So...you only care about mexicans.If being conservative means looking the other way while millions of mexicans invade the nation then count me out of your gay little club.
If you are a conservative ACT LIKE IT and stop looking the other way simply because you like Trump.
The truth always comes out, you're a weak ass fake Conservative!!
Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).
This isn't the act of a King, it's action we never get from elected officials, quit being afraid of the truth and start expecting our elected officials to do just that, act!
Yes, the truth DOES come out. Immigrants are being deported every day when they have American born children. Their babies do NOT anchor them here.
Idiot bullshit fuck youPresidents are SUPPOSED TO BE near kings. This is entirely within his right. It will do what he intended it to do. It will be challenged and end up before the Supreme Court. Guess which side will win?Let me start off by saying I oppose Birthright Citizenship unless one parent is a US citizen but I am more opposed to Presidents acting like kings who think they can rule by an iron fist.
For YEARS we all railed against Obama's use of the executive pen and rightly so. Do not fall prey to that which you oppose simply because of a letter behind a mans name.
Today I heard Trump on the radio referring to Obama's Dream Act as the excuse for his threat to use the same method to alter the 14th amendment. An act that he Hope's the supreme court will overrule. Yet he wants you to cheer and clap at his own duplicity.
If you are a conservative ACT LIKE IT and stop looking the other way simply because you like Trump.
Likely In his pantsThis is some funny shit right here.
Looking in the mirror again?
