Of course it was constitutional. Otherwise there wouldn't have been an amendment that made citizenship constitutional and specifically denied citizenship to native Americans.
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.
Texas denies anchor babies birth certificates
- Thread starter Preacher
- Start date
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #122
I am aware of the wetbacks and their Pope, who I like since he's almost a Christian...Illegals don't vote, and whatever airline you work for I ain't flying...
Religion in Mexico - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,396
- 2,180
Again, what is the difference? Are illegal immigrants not subject to our laws and courts?OP - I'm jealous of your low premium.
But, that's ObamaCare for you.
That issue was also addressed in the case, and they didn't care. Read it.Since the court already dealt with that issue in that case, I very much doubt they would bother eh?Will see, but it is a good argument, again the intent of the 14th was just for slaves, the Wong case was about parents here legally and gave birth to a child. I want it to go to the supreme court, just for clarification
God damn paint my house now you are just posting like a fool and can not distinguish between legal parents that came to the USA (like the Wong case)
From illegals that sneak here and give birth at hospitals...
Post it....
Getting bored of you not being able to distinguish between a legal resident and a illegal one.
Going to cut my grass soon.
What are you a broken record? Where the Japanese military on US soil subject to our courts and laws? When they were here?
yes, you are. you're trying to say that it only applies to former slaves and their children, which is more restrictive than the actual text of the amendment.you're arguing that the amendment is more restrictive than the text of the amendment. doesn't that seem silly?and yet they didn't write it into the text...the founders of the 14th amendment say so
guess that doesn't matter much then, does it?
they didnt write into the first amendment
that you have the right to burn a flag
but yet you do
go figure
no i am not you are
It was written because of what was happening to Slaves and their Children with laws being passed in the Southern States.
That is why the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were called the Reconstruction amendments.
We did not have illegals crossing the Mexican boarders in droves at the time they were written.
It was never meant to be for illegals to come here and give birth so that they can remain here as illegals with wanting their own language and not being loyal to America.
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #125
They can't respond because they'd have to admit they are wrong, and therefore fucked on deporting all those brown babies.Again, what is the difference? Are illegal immigrants not subject to our laws and courts?OP - I'm jealous of your low premium.
But, that's ObamaCare for you.
That issue was also addressed in the case, and they didn't care. Read it.Since the court already dealt with that issue in that case, I very much doubt they would bother eh?Will see, but it is a good argument, again the intent of the 14th was just for slaves, the Wong case was about parents here legally and gave birth to a child. I want it to go to the supreme court, just for clarification
God damn paint my house now you are just posting like a fool and can not distinguish between legal parents that came to the USA (like the Wong case)
From illegals that sneak here and give birth at hospitals...
Post it....
Getting bored of you not being able to distinguish between a legal resident and a illegal one.
Going to cut my grass soon.
jon_berzerk
Platinum Member
- Mar 5, 2013
- 31,401
- 7,369
- 1,130
t
i didnt write the 14th amendment
however the founders of the 14th said it was for former slaves
it wasnt for the Indians for example
yes, you are. you're trying to say that it only applies to former slaves and their children, which is more restrictive than the actual text of the amendment.you're arguing that the amendment is more restrictive than the text of the amendment. doesn't that seem silly?and yet they didn't write it into the text...the founders of the 14th amendment say so
guess that doesn't matter much then, does it?
they didnt write into the first amendment
that you have the right to burn a flag
but yet you do
go figure
no i am not you are
i didnt write the 14th amendment
however the founders of the 14th said it was for former slaves
it wasnt for the Indians for example
It has....sort of been challenged, or at least confirmed...with the term 'within its jurisdiction' and 'subject to the jurisdiction' IN the Plyler v Doe case...United States v. Wong Kim ArkCite the court case?If the baby was born here, it's American. Deal with it, the Supreme Court did, more than 100 years ago.Yes, states being unconstitutional, great idea...
You must have missed this part.
the link...
"But local officials, which issue birth certificates registered by the Texas Department of State Health Services Vital Statistics Unit, told the women they would no longer accept either the matricula consular, which is a photo ID issued by the Mexican Consulate to Mexican nationals living in the U.S., or a foreign passport without a current U.S. visa. Undocumented Central American women are also being turned away because they only have a passport without a U.S. visa. “They are locking out a huge chunk of the undocumented immigrant community,” says Harbury"
Guess you need a visa. If you're an illegal you won't have one.
125 years ago they said Indians are American citizens under the 14th but not illegal newborns
In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who
becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
- is born in the United States
- of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
- whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
- whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject
Birthright citizenship in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That was legal ....
We are talking illegal
Its never been challenged.
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982). "Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark ... detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term 'jurisdiction' was used. He further noted that it was 'impossible to construe the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" ... as less comprehensive than the words "within its jurisdiction" ... or to hold that persons "within the jurisdiction" of one of the States of the Union are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."' ... As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."
Last edited:
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #128
Were, not where, dumbass. Learn English, and that was war so they would have been, when caught, subject to US and international military law. They were, without question, subject to our laws when in our territory.Again, what is the difference? Are illegal immigrants not subject to our laws and courts?OP - I'm jealous of your low premium.
But, that's ObamaCare for you.
That issue was also addressed in the case, and they didn't care. Read it.Since the court already dealt with that issue in that case, I very much doubt they would bother eh?
God damn paint my house now you are just posting like a fool and can not distinguish between legal parents that came to the USA (like the Wong case)
From illegals that sneak here and give birth at hospitals...
Post it....
Getting bored of you not being able to distinguish between a legal resident and a illegal one.
Going to cut my grass soon.
What are you a broken record? Where the Japanese military on US soil subject to our courts and laws? When they were here?
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #129
The Founders were dead by then, and it hardly matters what they thought since the Supreme Court doesn't think it was only for the children of slaves.t
yes, you are. you're trying to say that it only applies to former slaves and their children, which is more restrictive than the actual text of the amendment.you're arguing that the amendment is more restrictive than the text of the amendment. doesn't that seem silly?and yet they didn't write it into the text...
guess that doesn't matter much then, does it?
they didnt write into the first amendment
that you have the right to burn a flag
but yet you do
go figure
no i am not you are
i didnt write the 14th amendment
however the founders of the 14th said it was for former slaves
it wasnt for the Indians for example
Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,396
- 2,180
No. Do your own damn homework, for once, and stop whining like an infant. The link is in this thread.The link to the case has been posted. They didn't care how they got here. It's in the damn case. Be an adult for once and read it.OP - I'm jealous of your low premium.
But, that's ObamaCare for you.
That issue was also addressed in the case, and they didn't care. Read it.God damn paint my house now you are just posting like a fool and can not distinguish between legal parents that came to the USA (like the Wong case)
From illegals that sneak here and give birth at hospitals...
Post it....
Getting bored of you not being able to distinguish between a legal resident and a illegal one.
Going to cut my grass soon.
Post it...
I done my home work and I know the case of Wong didn't say a God damn thing about illegals
You just don't want to post it because that case would make you look like a Jack ass.
So again post the Wong case?
Please so I can make fun of you
jon_berzerk
Platinum Member
- Mar 5, 2013
- 31,401
- 7,369
- 1,130
The Founders were dead by then, and it hardly matters what they thought since the Supreme Court doesn't think it was only for the children of slaves.t
yes, you are. you're trying to say that it only applies to former slaves and their children, which is more restrictive than the actual text of the amendment.you're arguing that the amendment is more restrictive than the text of the amendment. doesn't that seem silly?they didnt write into the first amendment
that you have the right to burn a flag
but yet you do
go figure
no i am not you are
i didnt write the 14th amendment
however the founders of the 14th said it was for former slaves
it wasnt for the Indians for example
just how stupid can you be
obviously there was "founders of the 14th amendment" or
there would not be a 14th amendment
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #132
You haven't done your homework you fucking infant, because if you had you would know that that issue was dealt with in the case, and dismissed. Read it: FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.No. Do your own damn homework, for once, and stop whining like an infant. The link is in this thread.The link to the case has been posted. They didn't care how they got here. It's in the damn case. Be an adult for once and read it.OP - I'm jealous of your low premium.
But, that's ObamaCare for you.
That issue was also addressed in the case, and they didn't care. Read it.
Post it....
Getting bored of you not being able to distinguish between a legal resident and a illegal one.
Going to cut my grass soon.
Post it...
I done my home work and I know the case of Wong didn't say a God damn thing about illegals
You just don't want to post it because that case would make you look like a Jack ass.
So again post the Wong case?
Please so I can make fun of you
Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,396
- 2,180
Were, not where, dumbass. Learn English, and that was war so they would have been, when caught, subject to US and international military law. They were, without question, subject to our laws when in our territory.Again, what is the difference? Are illegal immigrants not subject to our laws and courts?OP - I'm jealous of your low premium.
But, that's ObamaCare for you.
That issue was also addressed in the case, and they didn't care. Read it.God damn paint my house now you are just posting like a fool and can not distinguish between legal parents that came to the USA (like the Wong case)
From illegals that sneak here and give birth at hospitals...
Post it....
Getting bored of you not being able to distinguish between a legal resident and a illegal one.
Going to cut my grass soon.
What are you a broken record? Where the Japanese military on US soil subject to our courts and laws? When they were here?
Lmao, you want to correct my spelling? Hey can I buy a comma dumb ass in that paragraph that refuses to post the Wong case
That can not distinguish between a legal immigrant and a illegal one?
PaintMyHouse
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #134
The Founders are the men who Founded this nation. They weren't writing amendments to the Constitution after the end of the Civil Fucking War,The Founders were dead by then, and it hardly matters what they thought since the Supreme Court doesn't think it was only for the children of slaves.t
yes, you are. you're trying to say that it only applies to former slaves and their children, which is more restrictive than the actual text of the amendment.you're arguing that the amendment is more restrictive than the text of the amendment. doesn't that seem silly?
no i am not you are
i didnt write the 14th amendment
however the founders of the 14th said it was for former slaves
it wasnt for the Indians for example
just how stupid can you be
obviously there was "founders of the 14th amendment" or
there would not be a 14th amendment
dumbass, i've answered your question. answer mineAgain, what is the difference? Are illegal immigrants not subject to our laws and courts?OP - I'm jealous of your low premium.
But, that's ObamaCare for you.
That issue was also addressed in the case, and they didn't care. Read it.Since the court already dealt with that issue in that case, I very much doubt they would bother eh?
God damn paint my house now you are just posting like a fool and can not distinguish between legal parents that came to the USA (like the Wong case)
From illegals that sneak here and give birth at hospitals...
Post it....
Getting bored of you not being able to distinguish between a legal resident and a illegal one.
Going to cut my grass soon.
What are you a broken record? Where the Japanese military on US soil subject to our courts and laws? When they were here?
You haven't done your homework you fucking infant, because if you had you would know that that issue was dealt with in the case, and dismissed. Read it: FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.No. Do your own damn homework, for once, and stop whining like an infant. The link is in this thread.The link to the case has been posted. They didn't care how they got here. It's in the damn case. Be an adult for once and read it.Post it....
Getting bored of you not being able to distinguish between a legal resident and a illegal one.
Going to cut my grass soon.
Post it...
I done my home work and I know the case of Wong didn't say a God damn thing about illegals
You just don't want to post it because that case would make you look like a Jack ass.
So again post the Wong case?
Please so I can make fun of you
His Parents were here legally not illegally.
Wyatt earp
Diamond Member
- Apr 21, 2012
- 69,975
- 16,396
- 2,180
You haven't done your homework you fucking infant, because if you had you would know that that issue was dealt with in the case, and dismissed. Read it: FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.No. Do your own damn homework, for once, and stop whining like an infant. The link is in this thread.The link to the case has been posted. They didn't care how they got here. It's in the damn case. Be an adult for once and read it.Post it....
Getting bored of you not being able to distinguish between a legal resident and a illegal one.
Going to cut my grass soon.
Post it...
I done my home work and I know the case of Wong didn't say a God damn thing about illegals
You just don't want to post it because that case would make you look like a Jack ass.
So again post the Wong case?
Please so I can make fun of you
Fucking infant?
Getting upset now?
I will raise you fucking infant
And
Call you a needle dick, cock sucking Obama blue ball bitch
Now paint my house are you just going to debate or just master bait and fling insults your choice?
Again are you going to post the Wong case
doesn't matter.You haven't done your homework you fucking infant, because if you had you would know that that issue was dealt with in the case, and dismissed. Read it: FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.No. Do your own damn homework, for once, and stop whining like an infant. The link is in this thread.The link to the case has been posted. They didn't care how they got here. It's in the damn case. Be an adult for once and read it.
Post it...
I done my home work and I know the case of Wong didn't say a God damn thing about illegals
You just don't want to post it because that case would make you look like a Jack ass.
So again post the Wong case?
Please so I can make fun of you
His Parents were here legally not illegally.
The Founders are the men who Founded this nation. They weren't writing amendments to the Constitution after the end of the Civil Fucking War,The Founders were dead by then, and it hardly matters what they thought since the Supreme Court doesn't think it was only for the children of slaves.t
yes, you are. you're trying to say that it only applies to former slaves and their children, which is more restrictive than the actual text of the amendment.no i am not you are
i didnt write the 14th amendment
however the founders of the 14th said it was for former slaves
it wasnt for the Indians for example
just how stupid can you be
obviously there was "founders of the 14th amendment" or
there would not be a 14th amendment
So new Amendments are not written by the actually founder who wrote it?
The founders of the 26th amendment are still alive.
NYcarbineer
Diamond Member
No. Do your own damn homework, for once, and stop whining like an infant. The link is in this thread.The link to the case has been posted. They didn't care how they got here. It's in the damn case. Be an adult for once and read it.OP - I'm jealous of your low premium.
But, that's ObamaCare for you.
That issue was also addressed in the case, and they didn't care. Read it.
Post it....
Getting bored of you not being able to distinguish between a legal resident and a illegal one.
Going to cut my grass soon.
Post it...
I done my home work and I know the case of Wong didn't say a God damn thing about illegals
You just don't want to post it because that case would make you look like a Jack ass.
So again post the Wong case?
Please so I can make fun of you
So the fault here, if there is a fault, lies with all the complainers about birthright citizenship who themselves have failed to take the appropriate legal, constitutional action,
which is to bring their grievance to the attention of the courts, ultimately the Supreme Court.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 11
- Views
- 115
- Replies
- 26
- Views
- 414
- Replies
- 197
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 14
- Views
- 49
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8487
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 481
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-