Two Thumbs
Platinum Member
- Sep 27, 2010
- 38,220
- 6,513
Who gives a crap what mexico has to say/
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
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.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
LilOlLady's Everlasting Gobstopper Illegal Immigration Thread
- Thread starter LilOlLady
- Start date
WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,092
Ramses Barron was found dead outside a hospital in Nogales, Sonora, in the early hours on Wednesday with a wound from a bullet fired by a U.S. Border Patrol agent, Sonora state police said citing witnesses. Three men left Barron's body at the hospital, hospital workers told police.
does that make sense to anyone. read the article.. it's written as if their were witness to his being shot while scaling the fence, yet he's found dead OUTSIDE a hospital? I bet Mexico is lying through it teeth.
does that make sense to anyone. read the article.. it's written as if their were witness to his being shot while scaling the fence, yet he's found dead OUTSIDE a hospital? I bet Mexico is lying through it teeth.
LilOlLady
Gold Member
- Apr 20, 2009
- 10,030
- 1,319
- Thread starter
- #1,243
14th AMENDMENT DON’T APPLY TO CHILDREN OF ILLEGAL ALIENS.
14th amendment do not need to be repealed. It only need to be correctly interpreted and correctly applied. It does not apply to children of illegal aliens because the children, as the parents, are not [U]“subject to the jurisdicti[/U]on” of this country and owe their “allegiance” to Mexico, etc. They, as their parents, are citizens of Mexico, etc.
The 14th Amendment was written especially for children of ex-slaves whose were “subject to the jurisdiction” of this country and were brought here against their will and contributed hundreds of years of free labor and earned the legal right to citizenship. Illegal aliens as their children did nothing to earn the right to citizenship. They entered this country as citizens of Mexico, etc and owe their “allegiance” to Mexico, etc as their children.
It is not to late to fix the hundred year mistake that has been made. Automatic Birthright Citizenship cause too many problems for the illegal alien family unit and the Founding Fathers did not mean for it to cause problems but to eliminate problems. The black children were citizens as were they parents. Some of the illegal alien family members are American citizens and some are Mexican citizens. The wrong would be not to make it right. Apply the 14th amendment as the founding father intended it to be applied. The fact is the 14th amendment is obsolete because there are no children of ex-slaves. Blacks are citizens of American citizens by way of the 14th already. Children born to American citizens of automatically American citizens. Children born to Mexican citizens or Mexican citizens.
Apply the 14th Amendment as the Founding Fathers intended it to be applied. Anchor babies are not children of ex-slave.
Those who want to keep the 14th Amendment as it is, is just exacerbating the problem.
14th amendment do not need to be repealed. It only need to be correctly interpreted and correctly applied. It does not apply to children of illegal aliens because the children, as the parents, are not [U]“subject to the jurisdicti[/U]on” of this country and owe their “allegiance” to Mexico, etc. They, as their parents, are citizens of Mexico, etc.
The 14th Amendment was written especially for children of ex-slaves whose were “subject to the jurisdiction” of this country and were brought here against their will and contributed hundreds of years of free labor and earned the legal right to citizenship. Illegal aliens as their children did nothing to earn the right to citizenship. They entered this country as citizens of Mexico, etc and owe their “allegiance” to Mexico, etc as their children.
It is not to late to fix the hundred year mistake that has been made. Automatic Birthright Citizenship cause too many problems for the illegal alien family unit and the Founding Fathers did not mean for it to cause problems but to eliminate problems. The black children were citizens as were they parents. Some of the illegal alien family members are American citizens and some are Mexican citizens. The wrong would be not to make it right. Apply the 14th amendment as the founding father intended it to be applied. The fact is the 14th amendment is obsolete because there are no children of ex-slaves. Blacks are citizens of American citizens by way of the 14th already. Children born to American citizens of automatically American citizens. Children born to Mexican citizens or Mexican citizens.
Apply the 14th Amendment as the Founding Fathers intended it to be applied. Anchor babies are not children of ex-slave.
Those who want to keep the 14th Amendment as it is, is just exacerbating the problem.
LilOlLady
Gold Member
- Apr 20, 2009
- 10,030
- 1,319
- Thread starter
- #1,244
14th Amendment increases problems with illegal immigration
By Anika Jhalani | October 4, 2010
The very first lines of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution read, "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." This simple sentence has sparked a debate over the possible solutions and complications surrounding one of America's most controversial issues: illegal immigration. The 14th amendment, which introduces birthright citizenship, has encouraged some illegal immigrants to try to have children in the United States, which has created a host of problems for our nation.
]Illegal immigration is an issue that has plagued our nation for too long; it has created racist barriers, driven states into debt and caused Americans to contradict the very principles their country was founded upon. The catalyst for this ongoing problem has been abuse of the 14th amendment, which guarantees birthright citizenship.
The 14th amendment, which was established after the civil war to provide equal rights to former slaves, has exacerbated the problem of illegal immigration because it established the idea of "birth right" citizenship, a concept that created a myriad of problems regarding illegal immigration in the United States.
Birthright citizenship has been a disaster. We have wasted money on undocumented people, and have encouraged them to come and drain our wallets by waving the idea of citizenship upon birth in their faces. The 14th amendment needs to be reconsidered, even amended, to clear all ambiguity regarding birthright citizenship, and solve one of our nation's largest ongoing issues.
Cont;14th Amendment increases problems with illegal immigration | Saratoga Falcon
By Anika Jhalani | October 4, 2010
The very first lines of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution read, "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." This simple sentence has sparked a debate over the possible solutions and complications surrounding one of America's most controversial issues: illegal immigration. The 14th amendment, which introduces birthright citizenship, has encouraged some illegal immigrants to try to have children in the United States, which has created a host of problems for our nation.
]Illegal immigration is an issue that has plagued our nation for too long; it has created racist barriers, driven states into debt and caused Americans to contradict the very principles their country was founded upon. The catalyst for this ongoing problem has been abuse of the 14th amendment, which guarantees birthright citizenship.
The 14th amendment, which was established after the civil war to provide equal rights to former slaves, has exacerbated the problem of illegal immigration because it established the idea of "birth right" citizenship, a concept that created a myriad of problems regarding illegal immigration in the United States.
Birthright citizenship has been a disaster. We have wasted money on undocumented people, and have encouraged them to come and drain our wallets by waving the idea of citizenship upon birth in their faces. The 14th amendment needs to be reconsidered, even amended, to clear all ambiguity regarding birthright citizenship, and solve one of our nation's largest ongoing issues.
Cont;14th Amendment increases problems with illegal immigration | Saratoga Falcon
Last edited:
Six people are in custody who might be linked to the fatal shooting of a Border Patrol agent last month near Nogales, U.S. marshals say.
The Border Patrol arrested four illegal immigrants on Dec. 14, the night agent Brian Terry was fatally shot northwest of Nogales, including one who was hospitalized.
The next day, Border Patrol officials brought in two more men who they say might be connected to the shooting, said Ray Kondo, assistant chief of the U.S. marshals in Tucson.
"They could be involved; they could be witnesses. Who knows?" Kondo said. "We are not privy to that. They just told us they may be linked. How they are linked, I can't tell you."
All six men have made initial appearances in federal court, he said. They have been charged only with immigration offenses so far. The last one made his appearance on Tuesday after not being well enough to go to court until then.
That man's attorney, Assistant Federal Public Defender Victoria Brambl, asked the court to keep him in Tucson for medical reasons. She told the court that he had been "gravely injured, had undergone several surgeries and was in a great deal of pain," according to a news release from the federal Public Defender's Office.
The court denied the request.
The federal Public Defender's Office in Tucson has been advised by the U.S. Attorney's Office only about four people who needed to be assigned different attorneys to avoid any potential conflicts of interest in relation to the shooting, said Heather Williams, first assistant federal public defender for Arizona.
The U.S. Attorney's Office isn't required to tell the federal Public Defender's Office about potential conflicts of interest among detainees, but it usually does so as a courtesy, Williams said.
The four in custody whom Williams' office is aware of have been charged with re-entry after deportation but nothing related to the shooting.
FBI spokesman Manuel Johnson couldn't confirm the marshals' report about the two additional men in custody, saying only that the FBI was advised about the four men arrested by the Border Patrol the night of the shooting. The FBI is handling the investigation.
Agent Terry was killed during a shootout with suspected border bandits near Peck Canyon northwest of Nogales late in the evening. The U.S. Attorney's Office has not announced any criminal charges in relation to the shooting.
Terry, 40, was the 10th agent to die on duty in the Border Patrol Tucson Sector since 1926 and the first since 1998. Terry was buried in his hometown of Detroit on Dec. 22.
A public memorial service in Tucson is planned for 11 a.m. Jan. 21 at Kino Stadium, formerly known as Tucson Electric Park.
2 more held; may be linked to Terry killing
The Border Patrol arrested four illegal immigrants on Dec. 14, the night agent Brian Terry was fatally shot northwest of Nogales, including one who was hospitalized.
The next day, Border Patrol officials brought in two more men who they say might be connected to the shooting, said Ray Kondo, assistant chief of the U.S. marshals in Tucson.
"They could be involved; they could be witnesses. Who knows?" Kondo said. "We are not privy to that. They just told us they may be linked. How they are linked, I can't tell you."
All six men have made initial appearances in federal court, he said. They have been charged only with immigration offenses so far. The last one made his appearance on Tuesday after not being well enough to go to court until then.
That man's attorney, Assistant Federal Public Defender Victoria Brambl, asked the court to keep him in Tucson for medical reasons. She told the court that he had been "gravely injured, had undergone several surgeries and was in a great deal of pain," according to a news release from the federal Public Defender's Office.
The court denied the request.
The federal Public Defender's Office in Tucson has been advised by the U.S. Attorney's Office only about four people who needed to be assigned different attorneys to avoid any potential conflicts of interest in relation to the shooting, said Heather Williams, first assistant federal public defender for Arizona.
The U.S. Attorney's Office isn't required to tell the federal Public Defender's Office about potential conflicts of interest among detainees, but it usually does so as a courtesy, Williams said.
The four in custody whom Williams' office is aware of have been charged with re-entry after deportation but nothing related to the shooting.
FBI spokesman Manuel Johnson couldn't confirm the marshals' report about the two additional men in custody, saying only that the FBI was advised about the four men arrested by the Border Patrol the night of the shooting. The FBI is handling the investigation.
Agent Terry was killed during a shootout with suspected border bandits near Peck Canyon northwest of Nogales late in the evening. The U.S. Attorney's Office has not announced any criminal charges in relation to the shooting.
Terry, 40, was the 10th agent to die on duty in the Border Patrol Tucson Sector since 1926 and the first since 1998. Terry was buried in his hometown of Detroit on Dec. 22.
A public memorial service in Tucson is planned for 11 a.m. Jan. 21 at Kino Stadium, formerly known as Tucson Electric Park.
2 more held; may be linked to Terry killing
LilOlLady
Gold Member
- Apr 20, 2009
- 10,030
- 1,319
- Thread starter
- #1,248
Original intent of the 14th AmendmentThe 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."
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).
The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.
Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
Supreme Court decisions
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences.)
American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.
http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_ ... ntent.html
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."
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).
The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.
Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.
In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:
"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
Supreme Court decisions
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:
The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences.)
American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.
http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_ ... ntent.html
Speeddemon22
Member
- Dec 10, 2010
- 66
- 8
Who gives a crap what mexico has to say/
Obama, Napolitano and the attorney general who will investigate until the find the border patrol guilty of murder, send him off to prison and pay the family millions in a civil suit.
While I'm sure they'd like to do that, they won't. The BP agents were arresting drug runners while this kid and his friends threw rocks at them. This on the heels of a BP agent being murdered in AZ by an illegal. So the real question is, what the fuck did these kids think would happen? Did they think the BP agents were going to smile and wave, all friendly and shit? I mean, I don't like to see people die, but unless you have a serious death wish, you don't DO dumb shit like that.
Last edited:
Speeddemon22
Member
- Dec 10, 2010
- 66
- 8
And as always, another version of the story emerges...
Read THIS SHIT:
Barron Torres friend, who said he witnessed the shooting, denied that there was any rock-throwing. The 17-year-old Sonoran youth, who agreed to be interviewed only on the condition that his name would not be printed, said he was on the U.S. side of the border and Barron Torres was standing five or six meters away from the fence when the agent fired.
I think he fired just to scare me, the youth said. But the bullet passed through the fence the barrier at the spot where the shooting occurred consists of vertical steel tubes with several inches of space between them and stuck Barron Torres instead.
The youth said the agent ran up behind him and grabbed him as he was trying to scale the fence back into Mexico, but let go when he started screaming that his friend had been shot.
I think he got scared, he said.
Asked if the teens had been throwing rocks, the alleged witness said no. He suggested the agent fired at him because he was running toward the agent as he looked for a spot to jump the fence. Whats more, he was wearing a ski mask at the time to ward off the cold, he said and the mask may have frightened the agent.
YOU'VE GOT TO BE FUCKING KIDDING ME. THIS KID ADMITS TO RUNNING TOWARD A BP AGENT WEARING A SKI MASK...And he wants us to believe he shouldn't have been shot at.
Read THIS SHIT:
Barron Torres friend, who said he witnessed the shooting, denied that there was any rock-throwing. The 17-year-old Sonoran youth, who agreed to be interviewed only on the condition that his name would not be printed, said he was on the U.S. side of the border and Barron Torres was standing five or six meters away from the fence when the agent fired.
I think he fired just to scare me, the youth said. But the bullet passed through the fence the barrier at the spot where the shooting occurred consists of vertical steel tubes with several inches of space between them and stuck Barron Torres instead.
The youth said the agent ran up behind him and grabbed him as he was trying to scale the fence back into Mexico, but let go when he started screaming that his friend had been shot.
I think he got scared, he said.
Asked if the teens had been throwing rocks, the alleged witness said no. He suggested the agent fired at him because he was running toward the agent as he looked for a spot to jump the fence. Whats more, he was wearing a ski mask at the time to ward off the cold, he said and the mask may have frightened the agent.
YOU'VE GOT TO BE FUCKING KIDDING ME. THIS KID ADMITS TO RUNNING TOWARD A BP AGENT WEARING A SKI MASK...And he wants us to believe he shouldn't have been shot at.
LilOlLady
Gold Member
- Apr 20, 2009
- 10,030
- 1,319
- Thread starter
- #1,251
14TH AMENDMENT IS OBSOLETE
Because there are no longer any ex-slaves to apply it to. After ex-slave were given citizenship, it was no longer necessary or a viable law.
The 14th Amendment applied to ex slaves and their children through them, but since there are no more children of ex-slaves, it is obsolete and need to be changed to “only children born to American citizens are American citizens.” That means if you are an illegal alien, your children cannot become american citizens until you become an American citizen.
In 1868 there were no illegal aliens and no immigration laws so the 14th Amendment could not legally apply to children of illegal aliens. The long established practice of giving citizenship to children of illegal aliens is unconstitutional and need to be fixed ASAP and retroactive. We cannot take citizenship away from people? Yes we can and yes we have.
Even after the 14th Amendment gave citizenship to ex-slaves and their descendents, they still were not deemed complete citizens ( ¾ citizens) and it took the Civil Right Movement concluding in the Civil Rights Bill of 1965 to give them complete and equal citizenship rights.
Black American citizens could not vote like other American citizens. It took the Voting Act of 1965 to change the “practice” of not letting Blacks vote.
Just because a “practice” has been going on for 150 years do not mean it is legal. Explain that to Chris Matthews and others who want to leave parts of the 14th amendment out and only cite and apply parts of it which is “trampling” on the constitution by allowing children of illegal aliens to be American citizens.
We need to correct a 150 old practice that is illegal and unconstitutional. We cannot continue to give citizenship to anyone’s child that is born here. That has become America’s biggest tragedy because anchor baby’s children are deem american citizens when legally the anchor baby is not a legal american citizen. And these people who are part of the illegal alien family is able to vote and has all the benefits of an american citizen. And they did absolutely nothing to earn citizenship except being born here. And when they vote, it will be in favor or amnesty for their families who are in the country illegally.
The 14th Amendment became obsolete when the last ex-slave became a citizen in 1868. Blacks fought long and hard even after emancipation (1863)for equal and complete citizenship and they earned every bit of it. What have illegal aliens and anchor babies done to earn citizenship?
“Anchor babies are not children of ex-slave.”
Because there are no longer any ex-slaves to apply it to. After ex-slave were given citizenship, it was no longer necessary or a viable law.
The 14th Amendment applied to ex slaves and their children through them, but since there are no more children of ex-slaves, it is obsolete and need to be changed to “only children born to American citizens are American citizens.” That means if you are an illegal alien, your children cannot become american citizens until you become an American citizen.
In 1868 there were no illegal aliens and no immigration laws so the 14th Amendment could not legally apply to children of illegal aliens. The long established practice of giving citizenship to children of illegal aliens is unconstitutional and need to be fixed ASAP and retroactive. We cannot take citizenship away from people? Yes we can and yes we have.
Even after the 14th Amendment gave citizenship to ex-slaves and their descendents, they still were not deemed complete citizens ( ¾ citizens) and it took the Civil Right Movement concluding in the Civil Rights Bill of 1965 to give them complete and equal citizenship rights.
Black American citizens could not vote like other American citizens. It took the Voting Act of 1965 to change the “practice” of not letting Blacks vote.
Just because a “practice” has been going on for 150 years do not mean it is legal. Explain that to Chris Matthews and others who want to leave parts of the 14th amendment out and only cite and apply parts of it which is “trampling” on the constitution by allowing children of illegal aliens to be American citizens.
We need to correct a 150 old practice that is illegal and unconstitutional. We cannot continue to give citizenship to anyone’s child that is born here. That has become America’s biggest tragedy because anchor baby’s children are deem american citizens when legally the anchor baby is not a legal american citizen. And these people who are part of the illegal alien family is able to vote and has all the benefits of an american citizen. And they did absolutely nothing to earn citizenship except being born here. And when they vote, it will be in favor or amnesty for their families who are in the country illegally.
The 14th Amendment became obsolete when the last ex-slave became a citizen in 1868. Blacks fought long and hard even after emancipation (1863)for equal and complete citizenship and they earned every bit of it. What have illegal aliens and anchor babies done to earn citizenship?
“Anchor babies are not children of ex-slave.”
Last edited:
Rozman
Gold Member
- Sep 18, 2009
- 16,683
- 3,094
We can't even take care of or provide a safety net for our own citizens so we make sure we take care of those who enter this country illegally and reward them for having children here...
Now Jerry Brown, Governor of California in a state that is ready to collapse from the weight of its liberal spending ways wants to make sure that the illegals get a free college education.
Gov. moonbeam is one wacked out Mamma Jamma.
Now Jerry Brown, Governor of California in a state that is ready to collapse from the weight of its liberal spending ways wants to make sure that the illegals get a free college education.
Gov. moonbeam is one wacked out Mamma Jamma.
editec
Mr. Forgot-it-All
- Jun 5, 2008
- 41,421
- 5,672
LilOlLady
Gold Member
- Apr 20, 2009
- 10,030
- 1,319
- Thread starter
- #1,254
“WE CANNOT THROW PEOPLE OUT OF THE COUNTRY”
Quoted Chris Matthews. Yes we can and yes we have.
When we “throw” people out of the county when they are here illegally, it is called “deportation.”
Border patrol agents chase down, catch illegal aliens, hand cuff them and “throw” them out of the country back into Mexico. But if they get past the border patrols, we cannot round them up, hand cuff them and throw them out of the country because that would be “racial profiling.”
When we “throw” criminals into prison, it is called “incarceration.”
ICE raided McDonald, meat packing companies and other business and rounded up those working illegal and “threw” them out of the country. Deported them.
When we “throw” people out of their homes if they do not pay their mortgage, it is called “foreclosures.”
When we “throw” people out of homes they are renting for not paying their rent, it is called “evictions.”
This country is my home and illegal aliens have broken in and are staying as uninvited guess and ICE has to round them up and “throw” them out of my home. Deportation.
Deportation by Attritions is another way to “throw” those who are working in the country illegally out.
E-Verify is another way to “throw” illegal aliens out of the country. It is called Self Deportation or Deportation by Attrition.
If they cannot work they will “self deport” and they will take their families with them. Since the economy went bad, illegal aliens have been “throwing” themselves out of the country by the thousands.
Quoted Chris Matthews. Yes we can and yes we have.
When we “throw” people out of the county when they are here illegally, it is called “deportation.”
Border patrol agents chase down, catch illegal aliens, hand cuff them and “throw” them out of the country back into Mexico. But if they get past the border patrols, we cannot round them up, hand cuff them and throw them out of the country because that would be “racial profiling.”
When we “throw” criminals into prison, it is called “incarceration.”
ICE raided McDonald, meat packing companies and other business and rounded up those working illegal and “threw” them out of the country. Deported them.
When we “throw” people out of their homes if they do not pay their mortgage, it is called “foreclosures.”
When we “throw” people out of homes they are renting for not paying their rent, it is called “evictions.”
This country is my home and illegal aliens have broken in and are staying as uninvited guess and ICE has to round them up and “throw” them out of my home. Deportation.
Deportation by Attritions is another way to “throw” those who are working in the country illegally out.
E-Verify is another way to “throw” illegal aliens out of the country. It is called Self Deportation or Deportation by Attrition.
If they cannot work they will “self deport” and they will take their families with them. Since the economy went bad, illegal aliens have been “throwing” themselves out of the country by the thousands.
LilOlLady
Gold Member
- Apr 20, 2009
- 10,030
- 1,319
- Thread starter
- #1,255
There have been two major periods of mass deportations in U.S. history. In the Mexican Repatriation of the 1930s, through mass deportations and forced migration, an estimated 500,000 Mexicans and Mexican Americans were deported or coerced into emigrating, in what Mae Ngai, an immigration history expert at the University of Chicago, has described as "a racial removal program
Later, in Operation Wetback in 1954, when the United States last deported a sizable number of illegal immigrants, in some cases along with their U.S. born children (who are citizens according to U.S. law), some illegal immigrants, fearful of potential violence as police swarmed through Mexican American barrios throughout the southeastern states, stopping "Mexican-looking" citizens on the street and asking for identification, fled to MexicoIllegal immigration to the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Striking miners and others being deported at gunpoint from Lowell, Arizona, on July 12, 1917, during the Bisbee Deportation.
Deportation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deportations from the United States increased by more than 60 percent from 2003 to 2008, with Mexicans accounting for nearly two-thirds of those deported.
Illegal immigration to the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Later, in Operation Wetback in 1954, when the United States last deported a sizable number of illegal immigrants, in some cases along with their U.S. born children (who are citizens according to U.S. law), some illegal immigrants, fearful of potential violence as police swarmed through Mexican American barrios throughout the southeastern states, stopping "Mexican-looking" citizens on the street and asking for identification, fled to MexicoIllegal immigration to the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Striking miners and others being deported at gunpoint from Lowell, Arizona, on July 12, 1917, during the Bisbee Deportation.
Deportation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deportations from the United States increased by more than 60 percent from 2003 to 2008, with Mexicans accounting for nearly two-thirds of those deported.
Illegal immigration to the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
LilOlLady
Gold Member
- Apr 20, 2009
- 10,030
- 1,319
- Thread starter
- #1,257
Lawyer Allred throws illegal alien client under the bus for $6,210October 7, 2010 By Steve M
If youre looking for further proof Gloria Allred is flat out using Nicky Diaz Santillan as a political prop, all you have to do is look at the new lawsuit filed. Allred has exposed her client to felony charges and deportation to simply sue Meg Whitman for $6,210 in back wages and mileage reimbursement. You cant make this stuff up I tell ya.
Diaz Santillan is being taken for a ride and used as a political ad campaign against Meg Whitman by Gloria Allred. Allred has absolutely no concern for her client. Im wondering at what point will Diaz Santillan realize this, disassociate herself with Allred, and attempt to quietly blend in with the other illegal aliens in the country.
On the other hand, Allred probably pointing to the Aunt Zeituni case in Boston and told her there would be no way Immigration and Customs Enforcement would throw her out of the country as soon as she became a well-known housekeeper who was abused by a rich white woman who failed to pay her a mileage reimbursement or send her a card when she had a baby.
Lawyer Allred throws illegal alien client under the bus for $6,210 | Radio Vice Online
Was Nicky deported?????
If youre looking for further proof Gloria Allred is flat out using Nicky Diaz Santillan as a political prop, all you have to do is look at the new lawsuit filed. Allred has exposed her client to felony charges and deportation to simply sue Meg Whitman for $6,210 in back wages and mileage reimbursement. You cant make this stuff up I tell ya.
Diaz Santillan is being taken for a ride and used as a political ad campaign against Meg Whitman by Gloria Allred. Allred has absolutely no concern for her client. Im wondering at what point will Diaz Santillan realize this, disassociate herself with Allred, and attempt to quietly blend in with the other illegal aliens in the country.
On the other hand, Allred probably pointing to the Aunt Zeituni case in Boston and told her there would be no way Immigration and Customs Enforcement would throw her out of the country as soon as she became a well-known housekeeper who was abused by a rich white woman who failed to pay her a mileage reimbursement or send her a card when she had a baby.
Lawyer Allred throws illegal alien client under the bus for $6,210 | Radio Vice Online
Was Nicky deported?????
anuthervoice
pining for the fjords
- Jan 6, 2011
- 160
- 22
no surprise here. she served her purpose. useful idiots.
jillian
Princess
- Apr 4, 2006
- 85,728
- 18,113
she's entitled to be paid.
i'm not quite sure how that's 'throwing her under the bus'. the law says legal status isn't a defense to nonpayment of wages.
i love the woe is me fauxrage, though. cause we all know it's whitman who's the victim here.
*not*
i'm not quite sure how that's 'throwing her under the bus'. the law says legal status isn't a defense to nonpayment of wages.
i love the woe is me fauxrage, though. cause we all know it's whitman who's the victim here.
*not*
jillian
Princess
- Apr 4, 2006
- 85,728
- 18,113
she's entitled to be paid.
i'm not quite sure how that's 'throwing her under the bus'. the law says legal status isn't a defense to nonpayment of wages.
i love the woe is me fauxrage, though. cause we all know it's whitman who's the victim here.
*not*
i'm not quite sure how that's 'throwing her under the bus'. the law says legal status isn't a defense to nonpayment of wages.
i love the woe is me fauxrage, though. cause we all know it's whitman who's the victim here.
*not*
Similar threads
- Replies
- 202
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 278
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 365
- Replies
- 27
- Views
- 398
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 30
- Views
- 86
- Replies
- 115
- Views
- 611
- Replies
- 86
- Views
- 486
- Replies
- 58
- Views
- 460
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8496
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 482
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-