Trump: 14th Amendment is Unconstitutional

[paddymurphy]

"Why is it that you leftists cannot grasp the distinction between "legal" and "illegal."" So, if they are here legally they are not subject to our laws? To our jurisdiction? If they are not subject to our laws, they could not be illegal, then, could they?

Is a POW under the jurisdiction of the USA?

In your desire to import illegal aliens, you wander into rank absurdity.

Yes. A POW would be under the jurisdiction and, if one gave birth, that child would be a US citizen.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It does not matter whether they were here legally in construing the phrase. "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". You are incapable of reading the opinion in its entirety. And you ignore the two supreme Court decision since that recognized the citizenship of the children of illegal immigrants; a recognition that was unanimous both times.

Again, as a promoter of illegal immigration, you certainly have contempt for the concept of legal entry and residence.

 

[paddymurphy]

"Why is it that you leftists cannot grasp the distinction between "legal" and "illegal."" So, if they are here legally they are not subject to our laws? To our jurisdiction? If they are not subject to our laws, they could not be illegal, then, could they?

Is a POW under the jurisdiction of the USA?

In your desire to import illegal aliens, you wander into rank absurdity.

It does not matter whether they were here legally in construing the phrase. "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". You are incapable of reading the opinion in its entirety. And you ignore the two supreme Court decision since that recognized the citizenship of the children of illegal immigrants; a recognition that was unanimous both times.

Again, as a promoter of illegal immigration, you certainly have contempt for the concept of legal entry and residence.

So, since you cannot discuss the issue were are discussing, whether the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship, you deflect to some other topic.

 

[bendog]

Paddy, u may want to re-read Wong and look for the word and meaning of "domicile" of the parent.

I don't have time to check my apparent error on statutes on birthright citizenship.

 

[paddymurphy]

Paddy, u may want to re-read Wong and look for the word and meaning of "domicile" of the parent.

I don't have time to check my apparent error on statutes on birthright citizenship.

I don't have to read it again, There is no definition of that phrase. It did not matter why they were here, it mattered that they were here. And when are you going to read Plyler or Rios-Pineda. And when will you share with us your superior educational and professional qualifications?

 

[Redfish]

"Why is it that you leftists cannot grasp the distinction between "legal" and "illegal."" So, if they are here legally they are not subject to our laws? To our jurisdiction? If they are not subject to our laws, they could not be illegal, then, could they?

Is a POW under the jurisdiction of the USA?

In your desire to import illegal aliens, you wander into rank absurdity.

It does not matter whether they were here legally in construing the phrase. "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". You are incapable of reading the opinion in its entirety. And you ignore the two supreme Court decision since that recognized the citizenship of the children of illegal immigrants; a recognition that was unanimous both times.

Again, as a promoter of illegal immigration, you certainly have contempt for the concept of legal entry and residence.

So, since you cannot discuss the issue were are discussing, whether the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship, you deflect to some other topic.

as the 14th is currently being misinterpreted, you are correct. As the writers of that amendment intended, you are wrong.

Freed slaves and anchor babies are two totally different concepts. the 14th confered citizenship on freed slaves, not the children of people in this country illegally.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes. A POW would be under the jurisdiction and, if one gave birth, that child would be a US citizen.

I see.

So would a Mexican national who watched American TV also be a US Citizen? Perhaps registered to vote automatically?

 

[danielpalos]

"Why is it that you leftists cannot grasp the distinction between "legal" and "illegal."" So, if they are here legally they are not subject to our laws? To our jurisdiction? If they are not subject to our laws, they could not be illegal, then, could they?

Is a POW under the jurisdiction of the USA?

In your desire to import illegal aliens, you wander into rank absurdity.

It does not matter whether they were here legally in construing the phrase. "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". You are incapable of reading the opinion in its entirety. And you ignore the two supreme Court decision since that recognized the citizenship of the children of illegal immigrants; a recognition that was unanimous both times.

Again, as a promoter of illegal immigration, you certainly have contempt for the concept of legal entry and residence.

So, since you cannot discuss the issue were are discussing, whether the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship, you deflect to some other topic.

as the 14th is currently being misinterpreted, you are correct. As the writers of that amendment intended, you are wrong.

Freed slaves and anchor babies are two totally different concepts. the 14th confered citizenship on freed slaves, not the children of people in this country illegally.

Jurisdiction starts with a social contract and Constitution.

 

[paddymurphy]

Yes. A POW would be under the jurisdiction and, if one gave birth, that child would be a US citizen.

I see.

So would a Mexican national who watched American TV also be a US Citizen? Perhaps registered to vote automatically?

Are you that much of an asshole?

 

[Redfish]

"Why is it that you leftists cannot grasp the distinction between "legal" and "illegal."" So, if they are here legally they are not subject to our laws? To our jurisdiction? If they are not subject to our laws, they could not be illegal, then, could they?

Is a POW under the jurisdiction of the USA?

In your desire to import illegal aliens, you wander into rank absurdity.

Yes. A POW would be under the jurisdiction and, if one gave birth, that child would be a US citizen.

that is the most ridiculous post yet on this thread. you get the idiot award for the day.

 

[Redfish]

"Why is it that you leftists cannot grasp the distinction between "legal" and "illegal."" So, if they are here legally they are not subject to our laws? To our jurisdiction? If they are not subject to our laws, they could not be illegal, then, could they?

Is a POW under the jurisdiction of the USA?

In your desire to import illegal aliens, you wander into rank absurdity.

It does not matter whether they were here legally in construing the phrase. "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". You are incapable of reading the opinion in its entirety. And you ignore the two supreme Court decision since that recognized the citizenship of the children of illegal immigrants; a recognition that was unanimous both times.

Again, as a promoter of illegal immigration, you certainly have contempt for the concept of legal entry and residence.

So, since you cannot discuss the issue were are discussing, whether the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship, you deflect to some other topic.

as the 14th is currently being misinterpreted, you are correct. As the writers of that amendment intended, you are wrong.

Freed slaves and anchor babies are two totally different concepts. the 14th confered citizenship on freed slaves, not the children of people in this country illegally.

Jurisdiction starts with a social contract and Constitution.

yes, and the 14th conferred those on freed slaves. not on the child of a foreign citizen who comes to the US on one day to give birth.

This whole thing borders on ridiculous. Are you dems that desperate for voters? because thats what this is really about.

 

[danielpalos]

should we "give" female pow's free contraception and insist, nice girls do?

 

[danielpalos]

"Why is it that you leftists cannot grasp the distinction between "legal" and "illegal."" So, if they are here legally they are not subject to our laws? To our jurisdiction? If they are not subject to our laws, they could not be illegal, then, could they?

Is a POW under the jurisdiction of the USA?

In your desire to import illegal aliens, you wander into rank absurdity.

It does not matter whether they were here legally in construing the phrase. "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". You are incapable of reading the opinion in its entirety. And you ignore the two supreme Court decision since that recognized the citizenship of the children of illegal immigrants; a recognition that was unanimous both times.

Again, as a promoter of illegal immigration, you certainly have contempt for the concept of legal entry and residence.

So, since you cannot discuss the issue were are discussing, whether the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship, you deflect to some other topic.

as the 14th is currently being misinterpreted, you are correct. As the writers of that amendment intended, you are wrong.

Freed slaves and anchor babies are two totally different concepts. the 14th confered citizenship on freed slaves, not the children of people in this country illegally.

Jurisdiction starts with a social contract and Constitution.

yes, and the 14th conferred those on freed slaves. not on the child of a foreign citizen who comes to the US on one day to give birth.

This whole thing borders on ridiculous. Are you dems that desperate for voters? because thats what this is really about.

the Civil War amendments are pretty clear and concise.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

"Why is it that you leftists cannot grasp the distinction between "legal" and "illegal."" So, if they are here legally they are not subject to our laws? To our jurisdiction? If they are not subject to our laws, they could not be illegal, then, could they?

Is a POW under the jurisdiction of the USA?

In your desire to import illegal aliens, you wander into rank absurdity.

Yes. A POW would be under the jurisdiction and, if one gave birth, that child would be a US citizen.

that is the most ridiculous post yet on this thread. you get the idiot award for the day.

Boss already claimed that award several hours ago! Go take a look at it in ya'lls trophy case!!!!

 

[Camp]

"Why is it that you leftists cannot grasp the distinction between "legal" and "illegal."" So, if they are here legally they are not subject to our laws? To our jurisdiction? If they are not subject to our laws, they could not be illegal, then, could they?

Is a POW under the jurisdiction of the USA?

In your desire to import illegal aliens, you wander into rank absurdity.

Yes. A POW would be under the jurisdiction and, if one gave birth, that child would be a US citizen.

that is the most ridiculous post yet on this thread. you get the idiot award for the day.

Why?

 

[Redfish]

Is a POW under the jurisdiction of the USA?

In your desire to import illegal aliens, you wander into rank absurdity.

Again, as a promoter of illegal immigration, you certainly have contempt for the concept of legal entry and residence.

So, since you cannot discuss the issue were are discussing, whether the 14th Amendment confers birthright citizenship, you deflect to some other topic.

as the 14th is currently being misinterpreted, you are correct. As the writers of that amendment intended, you are wrong.

Freed slaves and anchor babies are two totally different concepts. the 14th confered citizenship on freed slaves, not the children of people in this country illegally.

Jurisdiction starts with a social contract and Constitution.

yes, and the 14th conferred those on freed slaves. not on the child of a foreign citizen who comes to the US on one day to give birth.

This whole thing borders on ridiculous. Are you dems that desperate for voters? because thats what this is really about.

the Civil War amendments are pretty clear and concise.

yes, and the 14th is also very clear in its intent. Do you think that the writers of the 14th foresaw foreign women from mexico coming to the US to give birth so their kids could be americans and they could come to the US to care for them? of course not. This is foolishness.

 

[Redfish]

"Why is it that you leftists cannot grasp the distinction between "legal" and "illegal."" So, if they are here legally they are not subject to our laws? To our jurisdiction? If they are not subject to our laws, they could not be illegal, then, could they?

Is a POW under the jurisdiction of the USA?

In your desire to import illegal aliens, you wander into rank absurdity.

Yes. A POW would be under the jurisdiction and, if one gave birth, that child would be a US citizen.

that is the most ridiculous post yet on this thread. you get the idiot award for the day.

Why?

Uhhh, duh, because he is an idiot?

 

[bendog]

"Why is it that you leftists cannot grasp the distinction between "legal" and "illegal."" So, if they are here legally they are not subject to our laws? To our jurisdiction? If they are not subject to our laws, they could not be illegal, then, could they?

Is a POW under the jurisdiction of the USA?

In your desire to import illegal aliens, you wander into rank absurdity.

Yes. A POW would be under the jurisdiction and, if one gave birth, that child would be a US citizen.

that is the most ridiculous post yet on this thread. you get the idiot award for the day.

He's being pedantic, but the POW example is interesting. A POW does have legal status, and at least in theory he has a legal right to sue in the jurisdiction of his incarceration. So unlike the illegal alien parents, he is in approximately the same status as Wong's parents were.

 

[bendog]

Paddy, u may want to re-read Wong and look for the word and meaning of "domicile" of the parent.

I don't have time to check my apparent error on statutes on birthright citizenship.

I don't have to read it again, There is no definition of that phrase. It did not matter why they were here, it mattered that they were here. And when are you going to read Plyler or Rios-Pineda. And when will you share with us your superior educational and professional qualifications?

No, I'll leave that to you, sage.

 

[Unkotare]

Funny to see so many bug-eyed buffoons insisting they have become constitutional scholars overnight, and that if they shout stridently enough they must therefore be correct.