Texas denies anchor babies birth certificates

[Preacher]

I would like to know why ALL democrats,left wingers,liberals whatever the hell you want to call yourself are so insistent on the US becoming a non white majority nation....you do realize this country was founded,fought for and built BY and FOR whites of good moral character and without white men and women the things we ALL enjoy we would not have and the high standard of living we have will only continue to erode the less white it becomes. Yet you democrats,liberals,left wingers seem to WANT that why is that? Some stupid sense of white guilt? You think the US deserves to be less white because its so far more advanced? what is it? The more I read from and about democrats,liberals and left wingers beliefs and comments on things the more I am convinced its a mental disease. No other explanation for it. So I am truly interested in knowing WHY.

go fuck yourself, racist

So we have the usual shrieking and name calling from a left winger that shows off the mental intability.

I would like to know why ALL democrats,left wingers,liberals whatever the hell you want to call yourself are so insistent on the US becoming a non white majority nation....you do realize this country was founded,fought for and built BY and FOR whites of good moral character and without white men and women the things we ALL enjoy we would not have and the high standard of living we have will only continue to erode the less white it becomes. Yet you democrats,liberals,left wingers seem to WANT that why is that? Some stupid sense of white guilt? You think the US deserves to be less white because its so far more advanced? what is it? The more I read from and about democrats,liberals and left wingers beliefs and comments on things the more I am convinced its a mental disease. No other explanation for it. So I am truly interested in knowing WHY.

Sieg Heil!

I get from your post that you believe whites are superior to other races, which is why you are baffled as to why other people think the races are equal and should therefore be treated equally.

Have you met PoliticalChic? You and she would get along famously. She hates multiculturalism as much as you do.

She's Asian, though. That's probably a big turnoff for you, though, huh?

I would bother wasting my time proving to you white's ARE superior to Blacks and Hispanics but why bother? Your kind believe what they want no matter what proof is given to them. Oh and another thing is MOST of you people claim race doesn't exist unless its to call a white person a racist etc. Funny how that works. Humans are just a high grade form of animal and in nature there is NO EQUALITY some animals are hunters some are prey,some are smart and survive some are dumb and weak and die off. Only by wasting TRILLIONS and the loss of MILLIONS of lives has the goal of equality and multicultism been "successful" in the mind of the liberal. It must be some sickness where they feel they need to disrupt nature because they are born of a superior race and think we must help a lower race up. Asians are superior as well. I have no problem with that member we agree on multicultism though. Read 1 book if you would. The Bell Curve. Great book.

I would like to know why ALL democrats,left wingers,liberals whatever the hell you want to call yourself are so insistent on the US becoming a non white majority nation....you do realize this country was founded,fought for and built BY and FOR whites of good moral character and without white men and women the things we ALL enjoy we would not have and the high standard of living we have will only continue to erode the less white it becomes. Yet you democrats,liberals,left wingers seem to WANT that why is that? Some stupid sense of white guilt? You think the US deserves to be less white because its so far more advanced? what is it? The more I read from and about democrats,liberals and left wingers beliefs and comments on things the more I am convinced its a mental disease. No other explanation for it. So I am truly interested in knowing WHY.

You and the misnamed peach, who thanked you, believe only white people should be Americans. This is seriously awesome.

I said that? Where? I am not an American. I don't consider myself an American because the typical American is an IDIOT of the highest degree. I am a White Southerner. In that order. O.R.I.O.N.

 

[Care4all]

Except that's completely unconstitutional.

Funny how once upon a few years ago the wingnuts all claimed that they were going to protect the Constitution.

Lying idiots.

Senator Howard, who wrote the 14th amendment also wrote this essay on the amendment:

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.

For those who want to protect the constitution, this shows illegal aliens are not covered under the 14th amendment.
I would guess the true idiot is one who does not do their research.

What he said was that THOSE foreigners, the aliens that are here on Diplomatic missions for the USA from a foreign nation, their children and their children alone, are not citizens if born on this soil while working for a foreign Nation, but ALL OTHERS ARE CITIZENS if born on this soil....

THIS is how his statement has been interpreted ever since....these foreigners have ''Diplomatic Immunity'' and ARE NOT under the JURISDICTION of the USA....thus their children can NOT be born citizens on our soil.

Did you forget the word "aliens?" There's a matter of allegiance as well. Those aliens can go through the process of getting citizenship and pledging their allegiance to the US. It's not that they can't be citizens at all. Go back and start over.

uhhhh, you do realize that aliens, foreigners, immigrants ALL HAVE the same meaning, and he specifically was speaking about aliens here on Diplomatic missions and their specific families...

everyone knew this then when history was being made , everyone knows this now...'cept the ill informed.

 

[peach174]

Why does allegiance matter?
Would you rather the USA be Mexico?

what i want is irrelevant - as is your question.
do you see anything about allegiance in the 14th amendment?

You have a one track mind.
You have taken it out of context.
No one has said that the word is in the 14th amendment.
We were talking about the Supreme Court case:
MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco; they continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China, and during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China. Wong Kim Ark, ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to-wit, in California, within the United States, and has there resided, claiming to be a citizen of the United States, and has never lost or changed that residence, or gained or acquired another residence, and neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.

Which means he was born an American, and was still an American when he returned from China. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Why can't you understand that his parents was here legally under American laws?

i think everyone understands that.
it's just irrelevant.

It is very relevant.
You can't come into the country breaking our laws and expect goodies.
Even Mexico has a better law than us.
Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

• in the country legally;

• have the means to sustain themselves economically;

• not destined to be burdens on society;

• of economic and social benefit to society;

• of good character and have no criminal records; and

• contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:

• immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;

• foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

• foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;

• foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;

• foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;

• those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

 

[Jackson]

Did you forget the word "aliens?" There's a matter of allegiance as well. Those aliens can go through the process of getting citizenship and pledging their allegiance to the US. It's not that they can't be citizens at all. Go back and start over.

you need to re-read that quote. it's about adding the phrase 'and under the jurisdiction thereof'
stating that it would not apply to the families of ambassadors and foreign ministers accredited to the us, those foreigners and aliens, doesn't mean that it doesn't apply to all foreigners and aliens.

It appears that this is not going to be settled on a message board, but by the SCOTUS. Maybe it will take a special Act, as it did with the Indians.

it has been settled, and the language is clear.

If it was clear, it wouldn't be debated all over the US

it's clear, there are just a lot of dumbasses that hate mexicans.

let me ask you - what language in the 14th amendment makes you believe that the children of foreigners born in the united states are not citizens of the united states?

I have posted that several times. You read the section.

 

[ogibillm]

what i want is irrelevant - as is your question.
do you see anything about allegiance in the 14th amendment?

You have a one track mind.
You have taken it out of context.
No one has said that the word is in the 14th amendment.
We were talking about the Supreme Court case:
MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco; they continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China, and during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China. Wong Kim Ark, ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to-wit, in California, within the United States, and has there resided, claiming to be a citizen of the United States, and has never lost or changed that residence, or gained or acquired another residence, and neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.

Which means he was born an American, and was still an American when he returned from China. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Why can't you understand that his parents was here legally under American laws?

i think everyone understands that.
it's just irrelevant.

It is very relevant.
You can't come into the country breaking our laws and expect goodies.
Even Mexico has a better law than us.
Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

• in the country legally;

• have the means to sustain themselves economically;

• not destined to be burdens on society;

• of economic and social benefit to society;

• of good character and have no criminal records; and

• contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:

• immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;

• foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

• foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;

• foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;

• foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;

• those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

it's not relevant according to the 14th amendment

 

[ogibillm]

you need to re-read that quote. it's about adding the phrase 'and under the jurisdiction thereof'
stating that it would not apply to the families of ambassadors and foreign ministers accredited to the us, those foreigners and aliens, doesn't mean that it doesn't apply to all foreigners and aliens.

It appears that this is not going to be settled on a message board, but by the SCOTUS. Maybe it will take a special Act, as it did with the Indians.

it has been settled, and the language is clear.

If it was clear, it wouldn't be debated all over the US

it's clear, there are just a lot of dumbasses that hate mexicans.

let me ask you - what language in the 14th amendment makes you believe that the children of foreigners born in the united states are not citizens of the united states?

I have posted that several times. You read the section.

this is a long thread, please, indulge me.
what language in the 14th amendment do you believe excludes the children of illegal immigrants?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

what i want is irrelevant - as is your question.
do you see anything about allegiance in the 14th amendment?

You have a one track mind.
You have taken it out of context.
No one has said that the word is in the 14th amendment.
We were talking about the Supreme Court case:
MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco; they continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China, and during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China. Wong Kim Ark, ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to-wit, in California, within the United States, and has there resided, claiming to be a citizen of the United States, and has never lost or changed that residence, or gained or acquired another residence, and neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.

Which means he was born an American, and was still an American when he returned from China. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Why can't you understand that his parents was here legally under American laws?

i think everyone understands that.
it's just irrelevant.

It is very relevant.
You can't come into the country breaking our laws and expect goodies.
Even Mexico has a better law than us.
Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

• in the country legally;

• have the means to sustain themselves economically;

• not destined to be burdens on society;

• of economic and social benefit to society;

• of good character and have no criminal records; and

• contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:

• immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;

• foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

• foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;

• foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;

• foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;

• those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

And just look at what a great country they are? You should move since they have the kind of laws you like, and we don't...

 

[peach174]

Except that's completely unconstitutional.

Funny how once upon a few years ago the wingnuts all claimed that they were going to protect the Constitution.

Lying idiots.

Senator Howard, who wrote the 14th amendment also wrote this essay on the amendment:

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.

For those who want to protect the constitution, this shows illegal aliens are not covered under the 14th amendment.
I would guess the true idiot is one who does not do their research.

What he said was that THOSE foreigners, the aliens that are here on Diplomatic missions for the USA from a foreign nation, their children and their children alone, are not citizens if born on this soil while working for a foreign Nation, but ALL OTHERS ARE CITIZENS if born on this soil....

THIS is how his statement has been interpreted ever since....these foreigners have ''Diplomatic Immunity'' and ARE NOT under the JURISDICTION of the USA....thus their children can NOT be born citizens on our soil.

Did you forget the word "aliens?" There's a matter of allegiance as well. Those aliens can go through the process of getting citizenship and pledging their allegiance to the US. It's not that they can't be citizens at all. Go back and start over.

uhhhh, you do realize that aliens, foreigners, immigrants ALL HAVE the same meaning, and he specifically was speaking about aliens here on Diplomatic missions and their specific families...

everyone knew this then when history was being made , everyone knows this now...'cept the ill informed.

If you think that applies to illegals who break our laws and come here to have their children, then you are uninformed.

 

[peach174]

You have a one track mind.
You have taken it out of context.
No one has said that the word is in the 14th amendment.
We were talking about the Supreme Court case:
MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco; they continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China, and during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China. Wong Kim Ark, ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to-wit, in California, within the United States, and has there resided, claiming to be a citizen of the United States, and has never lost or changed that residence, or gained or acquired another residence, and neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.

Which means he was born an American, and was still an American when he returned from China. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Why can't you understand that his parents was here legally under American laws?

i think everyone understands that.
it's just irrelevant.

It is very relevant.
You can't come into the country breaking our laws and expect goodies.
Even Mexico has a better law than us.
Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

• in the country legally;

• have the means to sustain themselves economically;

• not destined to be burdens on society;

• of economic and social benefit to society;

• of good character and have no criminal records; and

• contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:

• immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;

• foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

• foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;

• foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;

• foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;

• those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

And just look at what a great country they are? You should move since they have the kind of laws you like, and we don't...

How about making our laws even better than theirs?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Which means he was born an American, and was still an American when he returned from China. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Why can't you understand that his parents was here legally under American laws?

i think everyone understands that.
it's just irrelevant.

It is very relevant.
You can't come into the country breaking our laws and expect goodies.
Even Mexico has a better law than us.
Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

• in the country legally;

• have the means to sustain themselves economically;

• not destined to be burdens on society;

• of economic and social benefit to society;

• of good character and have no criminal records; and

• contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:

• immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;

• foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

• foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;

• foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;

• foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;

• those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

And just look at what a great country they are? You should move since they have the kind of laws you like, and we don't...

How about making our laws even better than theirs?

How about dealing with the fact that what works so well here is capitalism, which likes cheap labor, which is why, that and for a better life, their little brown asses are here in the first place.

 

[Ravi]

What he said was that THOSE foreigners, the aliens that are here on Diplomatic missions for the USA from a foreign nation, their children and their children alone, are not citizens if born on this soil while working for a foreign Nation, but ALL OTHERS ARE CITIZENS if born on this soil....

THIS is how his statement has been interpreted ever since....these foreigners have ''Diplomatic Immunity'' and ARE NOT under the JURISDICTION of the USA....thus their children can NOT be born citizens on our soil.

Did you forget the word "aliens?" There's a matter of allegiance as well. Those aliens can go through the process of getting citizenship and pledging their allegiance to the US. It's not that they can't be citizens at all. Go back and start over.

you need to re-read that quote. it's about adding the phrase 'and under the jurisdiction thereof'
stating that it would not apply to the families of ambassadors and foreign ministers accredited to the us, those foreigners and aliens, doesn't mean that it doesn't apply to all foreigners and aliens.

It appears that this is not going to be settled on a message board, but by the SCOTUS. Maybe it will take a special Act, as it did with the Indians.

it has been settled, and the language is clear.

If it was clear, it wouldn't be debated all over the US

Like 911 was an inside job. Morons spouting nonsense is a great right wing tradition.

 

[ogibillm]

can anyone point out the clause in the 14th amendment that excludes children born in the united states to illegal immigrant parents?

 

[auditor0007]

Except that's completely unconstitutional.

Funny how once upon a few years ago the wingnuts all claimed that they were going to protect the Constitution.

Lying idiots.

In the end, Texas will pay dearly for this. Like it or not, they are depriving US citizens of their rights.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

can anyone point out the clause in the 14th amendment that excludes children born in the united states to illegal immigrant parents?

Not a chance...

 

[ogibillm]

can anyone point out the clause in the 14th amendment that excludes children born in the united states to illegal immigrant parents?

Not a chance...

Jackson claims to have done so, but i can't find it. i'd really like to see where this idea stems from

 

[g5000]

I would bother wasting my time proving to you white's ARE superior to Blacks and Hispanics but why bother?

I think it would be a great idea for you to start a topic about the superiority of the white race. It would be a great change of pace from the usual whining drek we see every day.

Only by wasting TRILLIONS and the loss of MILLIONS of lives has the goal of equality and multicultism been "successful" in the mind of the liberal.

I'm telling ya, PoliticalChic would get wet between her legs to hear you go on about this. She only needs a little nudge to realize her inner nazi.

At least you are honest about it. I respect that.

 

[Jackson]

can anyone point out the clause in the 14th amendment that excludes children born in the united states to illegal immigrant parents?

Not a chance...

Jackson claims to have done so, but i can't find it. i'd really like to see where this idea stems from

{{sigh...}} 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.

 

[Syriusly]

Texas tried something similar, when they tried to say schools DID NOT have to support illegal immigrant children in to their schools because they were not here legally... SC ruled Texas was WRONG.

• Opinion
• Annotation

• Syllabus
• Case

U.S. Supreme Court
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
Plyler v. Doe

No. 80-1538

Argued December 1, 1981

Decided June 15, 1982*

457 U.S. 202

Syllabus

Held: A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Pp. 457 U. S. 210-230.

(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. Pp. 457 U. S. 210-216.

MORE AT THE LINK Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

Same will happen here...

"the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory."

This offers another look that equal protection extends to citizens or stranger (foreigners or aliens) who are subject to the laws of the state...

Plyler v. Doe says the 14th Amendment's protections applies to foreigners who are subject to the laws of the state- not the 14th Amendment- excluding Section 1.

Section 1. 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.

And Plyler v. Doe recognized that aliens within Texas are within the jurisdiction of Texas

Justices, J. Burger concurs on this point:

I have no quarrel with the conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically “within the jurisdiction” of a state.

Remember- the key is 'jurisdiction.

 

[Syriusly]

what i want is irrelevant - as is your question.
do you see anything about allegiance in the 14th amendment?

You have a one track mind.
You have taken it out of context.
No one has said that the word is in the 14th amendment.
We were talking about the Supreme Court case:
MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

The facts of this case, as agreed by the parties, are as follows: Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent domicil and residence therein at San Francisco; they continued to reside and remain in the United States until 1890, when they departed for China, and during all the time of their residence in the United States, they were engaged in business, and were never employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China. Wong Kim Ark, ever since his birth, has had but one residence, to-wit, in California, within the United States, and has there resided, claiming to be a citizen of the United States, and has never lost or changed that residence, or gained or acquired another residence, and neither he nor his parents acting for him ever renounced his allegiance to the United States, or did or committed any act or thing to exclude him therefrom.

Which means he was born an American, and was still an American when he returned from China. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Why can't you understand that his parents was here legally under American laws?

i think everyone understands that.
it's just irrelevant.

It is very relevant.
You can't come into the country breaking our laws and expect goodies.
Even Mexico has a better law than us.
Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:

• in the country legally;

• have the means to sustain themselves economically;

• not destined to be burdens on society;

• of economic and social benefit to society;

• of good character and have no criminal records; and

• contributors to the general well-being of the nation.

The law also ensures that:

• immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;

• foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;

• foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;

• foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;

• foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;

• those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.

So you consider Mexican law better than the U.S. Constitution?

Interesting.

 

[Syriusly]

Except that's completely unconstitutional.

Funny how once upon a few years ago the wingnuts all claimed that they were going to protect the Constitution.

Lying idiots.

In the end, Texas will pay dearly for this. Like it or not, they are depriving US citizens of their rights.

Well at most they are inconveniencing American citizens.

Whether or not Texas issues them birth certificates- they are still U.S. Citizens.