Texas denies anchor babies birth certificates

[Claudette]

Oh for heavens sakes. I give up.

You believe as you wish and I'll do the same.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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

As a favor to others: United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

And if you read the case you will discover that how the parents got here is not a concern.

Still waiting for you to post it because I was bored as he'll last night at work and read it a few times...

No where did it say anything about illegals

Then you didn't read it, and you didn't understand it, which doesn't surprise me.

You knew how to use copy And paste before in this thread before...

And now you don't know how to use it?

Yea.... Like that surprises me, when you do I Will burn you.

So again post the Wong case?

Dare you

This is the case you dumbass: United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Same link as before.

Damn dude you are computer illiterate, I feel sorry for you, don't know how to copy text? Only links?

Lmao....

 

[Care4all]

OP - I'm jealous of your low premium.

But, that's ObamaCare for you.

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...

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.

Again, what is the difference? Are illegal immigrants not subject to our laws and courts?

What are you a broken record? Where the Japanese military on US soil subject to our courts and laws? When they were here?

I was looking for every thing on search engines last night about that case...

It was always about legal imagrants giving birth to a child on US soil, Wong went back to China and came back to the USA.

It says nothing about illegal criminals according to US law coming here and having a baby...

But a 120 Years ago they didn't have that problem almost all came through Ellis island .

What the case says, is unless the baby born on USA soil's parents were (Indians not paying taxes), children of an attacking military of a foreign country, a baby born to parents who have diplomatic immunity (ambassadors and the such) of Foreign Nations...then ANYONE else born on USA jurisdiction/soil...IS a USA citizen, a natural Born Citizen, a citizen at Birth......


Maybe this Texas move, is just for political fodder in the National election run up, but maybe it will be the case that those objecting have chosen to have the supreme Court hear?

A shame if this is the case, and they chose to do so on a re-do, before an election.... at least in the Wong case, this case was CHOSEN among many cases out there, to be the court case that would be brought to the supreme court, to decide on the meaning of born within the jurisdiction of the US, or under the jurisdiction meant, and THEY CHOSE not to bring the case UNTIL AFTER the election so that "politics" would NOT interfere.

there is no one born on USA soil that was EXCLUDED from being a citizen than the exclusions MENTIONED in the amendment....there was absolutely NO REQUIREMENT for the parents of a baby born on USA soil, TO BE a parent within good standing of the law, and a legal alien....vs. an illegal alien....NONE my dear, absolutely no distinction, no mention of illegal alien parents being an exception...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

As a favor to others: United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

And if you read the case you will discover that how the parents got here is not a concern.

Still waiting for you to post it because I was bored as he'll last night at work and read it a few times...

No where did it say anything about illegals

Then you didn't read it, and you didn't understand it, which doesn't surprise me.

You knew how to use copy And paste before in this thread before...

And now you don't know how to use it?

Yea.... Like that surprises me, when you do I Will burn you.

So again post the Wong case?

Dare you

This is the case you dumbass: United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Same link as before.

Damn dude you are computer illiterate, I feel sorry for you, don't know how to copy text? Only links?

Lmao....

It is against the rules to post more than an a small portion and a link, dumbass. USMB Rules and Guidelines | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[ogibillm]

Oh for heavens sakes. I give up.

You believe as you wish and I'll do the same.

you give me a definition of the word 'jurisdiction' that includes the requirement for a home and i'll be happy to reconsider the issue.
why do you think that a 'domicile' is required for a person to fall under the jurisdiction of the united states?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Oh for heavens sakes. I give up.

You believe as you wish and I'll do the same.

Just one problem, the law is on his side and you are wrong.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

How is it unconstitutional?

From grandma's hero Harry Reid ....

“If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn’t enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right? Guess again. If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with US citizenship and guarantee a full access to all public and social services this society provides, and that’s a lot of services. Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense in county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?”




No, these are not recent comments from Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Steve King (R-IA) or even Donald Trump. These were the words of Harry Reid in 1993 when he introduced an immigration enforcement bill, which, among other things, reaffirmed the original and proper reading of the 14th Amendment and qualified the birthright citizenship clause to exclude those born here from illegal alien parents

- See more at: Conservative Review - Fixing the Birthright Citizenship Loophole: Myth vs Fact

Wow

 

[SwimExpert]

Loving these pro lifers right now, let's deny citizenship to children and send them back to extremely poor areas.

Yes, well, I'm pro-choice. You made a choice to come here, now make a choice and take your ass back. If you don't, we'll make a choice of our own, and you won't like it.

 

[Claudette]

Oh for heavens sakes. I give up.

You believe as you wish and I'll do the same.

you give me a definition of the word 'jurisdiction' that includes the requirement for a home and i'll be happy to reconsider the issue.
why do you think that a 'domicile' is required for a person to fall under the jurisdiction of the united states?

Here's a nice write up on the amendment.

Read the whole thing.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution



In 1898, 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

Note the domicile part.

 

[Claudette]

Oh for heavens sakes. I give up.

You believe as you wish and I'll do the same.

Just one problem, the law is on his side and you are wrong.

Nope. The law was never a law.

 

[ogibillm]

Oh for heavens sakes. I give up.

You believe as you wish and I'll do the same.

you give me a definition of the word 'jurisdiction' that includes the requirement for a home and i'll be happy to reconsider the issue.
why do you think that a 'domicile' is required for a person to fall under the jurisdiction of the united states?

Here's a nice write up on the amendment.

Read the whole thing.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution



In 1898, 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

Note the domicile part.

faulty reasoning and a misinterpretation of a court ruling doesn't make a case.

can you give a definition of the word 'jurisdiction' that includes the word 'domicile?'

 

[Wyatt earp]

OP - I'm jealous of your low premium.

But, that's ObamaCare for you.

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...

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.

Again, what is the difference? Are illegal immigrants not subject to our laws and courts?

What are you a broken record? Where the Japanese military on US soil subject to our courts and laws? When they were here?

I was looking for every thing on search engines last night about that case...

It was always about legal imagrants giving birth to a child on US soil, Wong went back to China and came back to the USA.

It says nothing about illegal criminals according to US law coming here and having a baby...

But a 120 Years ago they didn't have that problem almost all came through Ellis island .

What the case says, is unless the baby born on USA soil's parents were (Indians not paying taxes), children of an attacking military of a foreign country, a baby born to parents who have diplomatic immunity (ambassadors and the such) of Foreign Nations...then ANYONE else born on USA jurisdiction/soil...IS a USA citizen, a natural Born Citizen, a citizen at Birth......


Maybe this Texas move, is just for political fodder in the National election run up, but maybe it will be the case that those objecting have chosen to have the supreme Court hear?

A shame if this is the case, and they chose to do so on a re-do, before an election.... at least in the Wong case, this case was CHOSEN among many cases out there, to be the court case that would be brought to the supreme court, to decide on the meaning of born within the jurisdiction of the US, or under the jurisdiction meant, and THEY CHOSE not to bring the case UNTIL AFTER the election so that "politics" would NOT interfere.

there is no one born on USA soil that was EXCLUDED from being a citizen than the exclusions MENTIONED in the amendment....there was absolutely NO REQUIREMENT for the parents of a baby born on USA soil, TO BE a parent within good standing of the law, and a legal alien....vs. an illegal alien....NONE my dear, absolutely no distinction, no mention of illegal alien parents being an exception...

Bull shit that's a liberal interpretation dear.

It was all about legal immigrants , that's why we need the Supremes to clarify it.

 

[ogibillm]

Oh for heavens sakes. I give up.

You believe as you wish and I'll do the same.

Just one problem, the law is on his side and you are wrong.

Nope. The law was never a law.

the constitution is law

 

[ogibillm]

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.

Again, what is the difference? Are illegal immigrants not subject to our laws and courts?

What are you a broken record? Where the Japanese military on US soil subject to our courts and laws? When they were here?

I was looking for every thing on search engines last night about that case...

It was always about legal imagrants giving birth to a child on US soil, Wong went back to China and came back to the USA.

It says nothing about illegal criminals according to US law coming here and having a baby...

But a 120 Years ago they didn't have that problem almost all came through Ellis island .

What the case says, is unless the baby born on USA soil's parents were (Indians not paying taxes), children of an attacking military of a foreign country, a baby born to parents who have diplomatic immunity (ambassadors and the such) of Foreign Nations...then ANYONE else born on USA jurisdiction/soil...IS a USA citizen, a natural Born Citizen, a citizen at Birth......


Maybe this Texas move, is just for political fodder in the National election run up, but maybe it will be the case that those objecting have chosen to have the supreme Court hear?

A shame if this is the case, and they chose to do so on a re-do, before an election.... at least in the Wong case, this case was CHOSEN among many cases out there, to be the court case that would be brought to the supreme court, to decide on the meaning of born within the jurisdiction of the US, or under the jurisdiction meant, and THEY CHOSE not to bring the case UNTIL AFTER the election so that "politics" would NOT interfere.

there is no one born on USA soil that was EXCLUDED from being a citizen than the exclusions MENTIONED in the amendment....there was absolutely NO REQUIREMENT for the parents of a baby born on USA soil, TO BE a parent within good standing of the law, and a legal alien....vs. an illegal alien....NONE my dear, absolutely no distinction, no mention of illegal alien parents being an exception...

Bull shit that's a liberal interpretation dear.

It was all about legal immigrants , that's why we need the Supremes to clarify it.

what part needs clarification? do you believe that illegal immigrants (and more specifically their children born here) are not subject to our laws?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

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.

If the baby was born here, it's American. Deal with it, the Supreme Court did, more than 100 years ago.

Cite the court case?

125 years ago they said Indians are American citizens under the 14th but not illegal newborns

Also one hundred and twenty five years ago there were no illegals. I think the courts will look at it differently today.

The Illegals were the White Savages raping and stealing the land from the Natives...

 

[Claudette]

Oh for heavens sakes. I give up.

You believe as you wish and I'll do the same.

you give me a definition of the word 'jurisdiction' that includes the requirement for a home and i'll be happy to reconsider the issue.
why do you think that a 'domicile' is required for a person to fall under the jurisdiction of the united states?

Here's a nice write up on the amendment.

Read the whole thing.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution



In 1898, 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

Note the domicile part.

faulty reasoning and a misinterpretation of a court ruling doesn't make a case.

can you give a definition of the word 'jurisdiction' that includes the word 'domicile?'

How bout you look it up yourself. I really could care less. You will believe exactly what you want to believe.

Have a nice day.

 

[peach174]

Oh for heavens sakes. I give up.

You believe as you wish and I'll do the same.

you give me a definition of the word 'jurisdiction' that includes the requirement for a home and i'll be happy to reconsider the issue.
why do you think that a 'domicile' is required for a person to fall under the jurisdiction of the united states?

Here's a nice write up on the amendment.

Read the whole thing.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution



In 1898, 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

Note the domicile part.

faulty reasoning and a misinterpretation of a court ruling doesn't make a case.

can you give a definition of the word 'jurisdiction' that includes the word 'domicile?'

Jurisdiction is the practical authority to interpret and apply the law and the law interpreted was under California's domicile law at the time.

 

[SwimExpert]

what part needs clarification? do you believe that illegal immigrants (and more specifically their children born here) are not subject to our laws?

If they were subject to our laws, they wouldn't be here, now would they?

 

[Claudette]

Oh for heavens sakes. I give up.

You believe as you wish and I'll do the same.

Just one problem, the law is on his side and you are wrong.

Nope. The law was never a law.

the constitution is law

Oh for heavens sakes. I give up.

You believe as you wish and I'll do the same.

you give me a definition of the word 'jurisdiction' that includes the requirement for a home and i'll be happy to reconsider the issue.
why do you think that a 'domicile' is required for a person to fall under the jurisdiction of the united states?

Here's a nice write up on the amendment.

Read the whole thing.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution



In 1898, 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

Note the domicile part.

faulty reasoning and a misinterpretation of a court ruling doesn't make a case.

can you give a definition of the word 'jurisdiction' that includes the word 'domicile?'

Jurisdiction is the practical authority to interpret and apply the law and the law interpreted was under California's domicile law at the time.

Thanks Peach but never mind him.

He's playing word games. He wouldn't agree that he's in the wrong no matter what proof he had and his little jurisdiction and domicile bullshit proves it. He could have found the answer for himself and from now on he can kiss my ass.

Fuck em and the horse he rode in on.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

Actually, no it isn't.