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.
This OP is at least 3x the intelligence of the average twaf poster here.
given all the debate on immigration, and calls for rescinding birthright citizenship, a simple question.
Should we go back to the immigration policy prior to passage of the 14th amendment?
I am not talking about citizenship, just who we let in.
Our welfare clause is General and should cover this contingency due to this express power: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalizationgiven all the debate on immigration, and calls for rescinding birthright citizenship, a simple question.
Should we go back to the immigration policy prior to passage of the 14th amendment?
I am not talking about citizenship, just who we let in.
the right wing and their Doctrine is worthless if they have nothing but Repeal, instead of better solutions at lower cost.given all the debate on immigration, and calls for rescinding birthright citizenship, a simple question.
Should we go back to the immigration policy prior to passage of the 14th amendment?
I am not talking about citizenship, just who we let in.
Well, let me ask you this question. How do you interpret the article of the 14th amendment? Let me ask you this also, should that anchor baby give everyone amnesty or do we still believe in individualism
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
the right wing and their Doctrine is worthless if they have nothing but Repeal, instead of better solutions at lower cost.given all the debate on immigration, and calls for rescinding birthright citizenship, a simple question.
Should we go back to the immigration policy prior to passage of the 14th amendment?
I am not talking about citizenship, just who we let in.
Well, let me ask you this question. How do you interpret the article of the 14th amendment? Let me ask you this also, should that anchor baby give everyone amnesty or do we still believe in individualism
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Assuming you’re only referring to the citizenship clause, I don’t think there is any interpretation: the children born in the U.S. to those who were legally in the country at that time, with the exceptions of Indians born on reservations and the children of those with diplomatic immunity. The exception for Indians was done away with by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. I think that it should be the same now...regardless of any later changes in the law, if someone would be here legally under 1868 immigration laws then their children born here are U.S. citizensgiven all the debate on immigration, and calls for rescinding birthright citizenship, a simple question.
Should we go back to the immigration policy prior to passage of the 14th amendment?
I am not talking about citizenship, just who we let in.
Well, let me ask you this question. How do you interpret the article of the 14th amendment?
It never has given amnesty. Having a U.S. citizen child doesn’t have any affect on the mother or father’s legal status.Let me ask you this also, should that anchor baby give everyone amnesty or do we still believe in individualism
There is no express wall building power. Or any power for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.the right wing and their Doctrine is worthless if they have nothing but Repeal, instead of better solutions at lower cost.given all the debate on immigration, and calls for rescinding birthright citizenship, a simple question.
Should we go back to the immigration policy prior to passage of the 14th amendment?
I am not talking about citizenship, just who we let in.
Well, let me ask you this question. How do you interpret the article of the 14th amendment? Let me ask you this also, should that anchor baby give everyone amnesty or do we still believe in individualism
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
True, but we cannot just use the liberal idea of no boarder because at what point do we have a legitimate conversation about security and, stopping criminal activity? Well, you can say that every person is illegal. Not really the case but if you are entering illegally then you are trespassing
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Have your hundreds of cousins not made it up yet?There is no express wall building power. Or any power for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.the right wing and their Doctrine is worthless if they have nothing but Repeal, instead of better solutions at lower cost.given all the debate on immigration, and calls for rescinding birthright citizenship, a simple question.
Should we go back to the immigration policy prior to passage of the 14th amendment?
I am not talking about citizenship, just who we let in.
Well, let me ask you this question. How do you interpret the article of the 14th amendment? Let me ask you this also, should that anchor baby give everyone amnesty or do we still believe in individualism
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
True, but we cannot just use the liberal idea of no boarder because at what point do we have a legitimate conversation about security and, stopping criminal activity? Well, you can say that every person is illegal. Not really the case but if you are entering illegally then you are trespassing
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
most would rather engage in Commerce with us over there than have to come here due to the chaos induced by our drug war over there.Have your hundreds of cousins not made it up yet?There is no express wall building power. Or any power for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.the right wing and their Doctrine is worthless if they have nothing but Repeal, instead of better solutions at lower cost.given all the debate on immigration, and calls for rescinding birthright citizenship, a simple question.
Should we go back to the immigration policy prior to passage of the 14th amendment?
I am not talking about citizenship, just who we let in.
Well, let me ask you this question. How do you interpret the article of the 14th amendment? Let me ask you this also, should that anchor baby give everyone amnesty or do we still believe in individualism
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
True, but we cannot just use the liberal idea of no boarder because at what point do we have a legitimate conversation about security and, stopping criminal activity? Well, you can say that every person is illegal. Not really the case but if you are entering illegally then you are trespassing
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
We’re not forcing them to deal drugs. And we’re full up on drug dealers up here.most would rather engage in Commerce with us over there than have to come here due to the chaos induced by our drug war over there.Have your hundreds of cousins not made it up yet?There is no express wall building power. Or any power for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.the right wing and their Doctrine is worthless if they have nothing but Repeal, instead of better solutions at lower cost.Well, let me ask you this question. How do you interpret the article of the 14th amendment? Let me ask you this also, should that anchor baby give everyone amnesty or do we still believe in individualism
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
True, but we cannot just use the liberal idea of no boarder because at what point do we have a legitimate conversation about security and, stopping criminal activity? Well, you can say that every person is illegal. Not really the case but if you are entering illegally then you are trespassing
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
there is no express drug war or wall building clause in our Constitution.We’re not forcing them to deal drugs. And we’re full up on drug dealers up here.most would rather engage in Commerce with us over there than have to come here due to the chaos induced by our drug war over there.Have your hundreds of cousins not made it up yet?There is no express wall building power. Or any power for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.the right wing and their Doctrine is worthless if they have nothing but Repeal, instead of better solutions at lower cost.
True, but we cannot just use the liberal idea of no boarder because at what point do we have a legitimate conversation about security and, stopping criminal activity? Well, you can say that every person is illegal. Not really the case but if you are entering illegally then you are trespassing
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk