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.
Forget it. Even I can't help out stupid at this level since you can't understand that the Supreme Court has the final say on what is constitutional. They say a baby born here is, nearly without exception, an American. And that is what matters, period.Whatever case you are speaking of is not the one that matters. What, by chance, is it?
No case matters.
It doesn't matter, and it didn't more than 100 years ago when the SC decided this either.They were here legally, but...
And illegal aliens are NOT here legally.
Forget it. Even I can't help out stupid at this level since you can't understand that the Supreme Court has the final say on what is constitutional. They say a baby born here is, nearly without exception, an American. And that is what matters, period.Whatever case you are speaking of is not the one that matters. What, by chance, is it?
No case matters.
If obama can sell weapons to Mexican drug cartels, Trump can make invading the US a capitol felony.You can believe it all you like, it isn't true.I believe invading the US could become a capitol felony if POTUS issued an executive order.
I believe a lot of individuals came from all over to donate their time to rebuild New Orleans.Bub, you and some of your cohorts, have no idea just how bad Mexicans can be, none. I dare your sorry ass to live with "illegal" Mexicans for a year or two, then come back here and earn some wisdom. Right how you just sound a like a self righteous prick.
I'm not sure who, "Bub" is, but I am very grateful that illegal immigrants rebuilt my house in New Orleans after Katrina. There were no legal workers to be found anywhere. All of the working class people had their homes wiped out, and moved to other cities. The illegals came and slept in the parks.
Illegals have no place in the United States. A person who applies for a work visa and is given one is not illegal. And it is ridiculous for anyone to imagine that police would go door to door. They would simply wait until an illegal did something wrong and then deport him and any illegal family members.
A child born to an illegal in the US, should also be deported with the family unit. A child belongs with his parents but should be able to re-enter the US when he reaches 21.
Anyone who is not willing to see the logic in what I've stated, is likely only seeking votes for the Democratic party ---- or they wish to keep their household staff. My ancestors certainly needed to go through Ellis Island protocol. I cannot imagine why selected races should receive preferential treatment.
Who said "racist"? Oh! It was you."The whole thing is just a continuation of the movement to keep the (Irish), (blacks), (Italians), (Chinese), (Jews), (Muslims), (Latinos) out."I live about 35 miles from the border, and cross it regularly. I find it more than a little amusing that anyone would think that a fence would stop someone who has already made up his mind to walk for at least 3 days across a desert full of cactus and rattlesnakes, with little or no water and food, in scorching heat, with no shade, guide, or even a pair of boots. In AZ, we find about 200 bodies per year of those that fail to make it. It is beyond absurd. Besides that, few actually walk from the border to Phoenix. They are usually driven through the border in a truck or van and dropped off on the other side, to fend for themselves against the elements. Then, of course there is the other half of them who come over on visa's and simply don't go back. Down in Nogales, a bus fell through the pavement of a street, because it caused a tunnel under the border to collapse. The fact that China built the world's largest wall, which failed, over 1,000 years ago does not discourage Trump or his fans either.
The whole thing is just a continuation of the movement to keep the (Irish), (blacks), (Italians), (Chinese), (Jews), (Muslims), (Latinos) out.
BULLSHIT! The whole thing is to manage the number of immigrants we take in, just like it has been for generations.
Your family immigrated from somewhere, part of mine did as did virtually all of someone in all of our family trees. The difference is we all did it the right way. These illegal immigrants are little more than invaders who've come to take advantage of our system and citizens.
Racist? BULLSHIT! (says the guy with the confederate flag avatar).
The Confederate flag avatar is there simply to piss people like you off. Thanks for confirming it is doing what I intended it to do.
I thought it to be appropriate to quote the 14th amendment wording, so that it's myth can be exposed:
"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."
14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Okay.. If the argument of those who believe it confers birthright citizenship were valid, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" would not be necessary. The clause would read: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But "subject to jurisdiction thereof" is a very important phrase and it means something. Even the simple word "and" is important. So now you have a list of criteria to meet. You must be born or naturalized, and also... subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means
In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather then assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone. Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provides the answer, with Trumbull declaring:
The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
In other words, it isn’t local jurisdiction the Fourteenth Amendment recognizes but only the lack of owing allegiance to some other nation because the United States only recognizes those who are ‘true and faithful’ alone to the nation. As will be explained shortly, only acts under the laws of naturalization can remove an alien’s allegiance to some other country under United States law.
Additionally, Trumbull argued Indians could not be subject to the jurisdiction for the reason the United States deals with them through treaties. This is also exactly how the United States deals with aliens; it enters into treaties with outer countries to define legal rights of their citizens while within the limits of the United States and vice versa. Example: A treaty with China prohibited the United States from naturalizing Chinese citizens.
Sen. Trumbull further added, “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’” Sen. Jacob Howard agreed:
concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.
This remark by Sen. Howard places this earlier comment of his on who is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” into proper context: “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.”
What Sen. Howard is saying here is citizenship by birth is established by the sovereign jurisdiction the United States already has over the parents of the child, and that required that they owe allegiance exclusively to the United States – just as is required to become a naturalized citizen. It does not require a leap of faith to understand what persons, other than citizens themselves, under the Fourteenth Amendment are citizens of the United States by birth: Those aliens who have come with the intent to become U.S. citizens, who had first complied with the laws of naturalization in declaring their intent and renounce all prior allegiances.
Sen. Trumbull further restates the the goal of the language: “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens…” Note that Trumbull does not say temporarily within our jurisdiction, but completely within our jurisdiction.
We always could pass a law making crossing our borders illegally a capitol felony. I believe President Trump could do that by executive order, if the past 6.5 years can be taken as precedent.What kind of specific is that? It's like telling me. I'm going to stop the rain with a bucket. If you don't know just say so.The problem Boss is just like others. You have this attitudes I want, I want, I want just like Paddy mentioned. Then you you and others keep saying I don't care, I don't care. When the fuck of the matter is you YOU don't have any specific how to handle this problem. You don't even understand the logistics. And yet you keep insisting the bullshit from this bullshiter.
Everyone wants to solve this problem. Now if you can tell us the specific how to solve this problem will be glad to shut.
For now, since you don't have any clue what you are talking about. Shut the fuck up.
Well if you go back and read the thread, you'll find that my assertion of what "I want" is presented in response to someone implying I wanted "to kick out brown people." Since that was NOT what I want, I felt strongly compelled to set the record straight. I'm sorry if my setting the record straight offended you in some way. As for now, we live in a free and open society and you do not have the authority to tell me to shut up.
Now... You want specifics...
We're going to build a wall across our southern border.
All logistics have been considered and it can be done.
This solves the problem of illegals crossing our southern border.
The wall will be paid for by Mexico who depend on US trade.
That's about as specific as we can be.
What made you think a wall will solve the problem?
You mentioned only WALL. I think the topic of this thread is about illegals. How about illegals that are here?
I really don't understand this continual clamoring for "specifics" when it has been presented about as specifically as it can be at this point. Do you need to know how many bags of concrete will be used? How much re-bar will be needed? Will it be a Corps of Engineers project or will we do contract bids? Well.. no one has all that laid out and settled yet but it's not a big deal. Nothing here is unprecedented or impossible. Walls have been built before... Great Walls!
What makes me think a wall would solve the problem? Well... Hmmm... maybe because walls are difficult to get over? And hey... if the wall is not too hard to get over, we can also plant some land mines... that's an option. What makes your retarded ass think a wall wouldn't stop illegal aliens from crossing our southern border?
I've already addressed illegals already here... When they break a law here, we fucking deport them like we're supposed to be doing. AFTER we have a wall built, we can look at what to do with the law-abiding illegals still here. We're not going to just give them a free amnesty pass... they will probably have to pay a fine and apply for citizenship. BUT... we're not even going to have that conversation until the wall is built. It's pointless.
That is the icing on the cake, Boss. anytime that someone starts talking about the US government planting land mines to stop people from committing misdemeanors, I know that their train left the baggage at the station. You have revealed all you need to say about yourself, now, and I am not going to take anything you say seriously from here on out.
Forget it. Even I can't help out stupid at this level since you can't understand that the Supreme Court has the final say on what is constitutional. They say a baby born here is, nearly without exception, an American. And that is what matters, period.Whatever case you are speaking of is not the one that matters. What, by chance, is it?
No case matters.
Yes, they have. It's in US v Wong. They knew of the issue, and ignored it.Forget it. Even I can't help out stupid at this level since you can't understand that the Supreme Court has the final say on what is constitutional. They say a baby born here is, nearly without exception, an American. And that is what matters, period.Whatever case you are speaking of is not the one that matters. What, by chance, is it?
No case matters.
Damn PMH you are beyond help, you still can not figure out the difference between parents coming here legally and having a child and one's that come here illegally and have an anchor baby?
The courts never ruled on the latter.
Reject it all you like, you are rejecting American history and reality.Forget it. Even I can't help out stupid at this level since you can't understand that the Supreme Court has the final say on what is constitutional. They say a baby born here is, nearly without exception, an American. And that is what matters, period.Whatever case you are speaking of is not the one that matters. What, by chance, is it?
No case matters.
No, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over powers the Constitution specifically delegates to Congress. I'm sorry that you believe otherwise but you're a moron.
It may be policy to presume birthright citizenship but it is completely statutory and determinable by Congress and Congress alone. I've presented where the Constitution says this. Furthermore, Article 3 specifically leaves the question of the court's jurisdiction to Congress as well. So no... I reject very forcefully that the Constitution leaves final say with SCOTUS. It simply DOES NOT!
No, he cannot...If obama can sell weapons to Mexican drug cartels, Trump can make invading the US a capitol felony.You can believe it all you like, it isn't true.I believe invading the US could become a capitol felony if POTUS issued an executive order.
Have you forgotten something? How much do you think those products will cost to American consumers.?
Maybe people are unwilling to agree with your statement because what you are advocating violates the 14th amendment to the Constitution.
I thought it to be appropriate to quote the 14th amendment wording, so that it's myth can be exposed:
"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."
14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
Okay.. If the argument of those who believe it confers birthright citizenship were valid, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" would not be necessary. The clause would read: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But "subject to jurisdiction thereof" is a very important phrase and it means something. Even the simple word "and" is important. So now you have a list of criteria to meet. You must be born or naturalized, and also... subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means
In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather then assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone. Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provides the answer, with Trumbull declaring:
The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
In other words, it isn’t local jurisdiction the Fourteenth Amendment recognizes but only the lack of owing allegiance to some other nation because the United States only recognizes those who are ‘true and faithful’ alone to the nation. As will be explained shortly, only acts under the laws of naturalization can remove an alien’s allegiance to some other country under United States law.
Additionally, Trumbull argued Indians could not be subject to the jurisdiction for the reason the United States deals with them through treaties. This is also exactly how the United States deals with aliens; it enters into treaties with outer countries to define legal rights of their citizens while within the limits of the United States and vice versa. Example: A treaty with China prohibited the United States from naturalizing Chinese citizens.
Sen. Trumbull further added, “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’” Sen. Jacob Howard agreed:
concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.
This remark by Sen. Howard places this earlier comment of his on who is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” into proper context: “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.”
What Sen. Howard is saying here is citizenship by birth is established by the sovereign jurisdiction the United States already has over the parents of the child, and that required that they owe allegiance exclusively to the United States – just as is required to become a naturalized citizen. It does not require a leap of faith to understand what persons, other than citizens themselves, under the Fourteenth Amendment are citizens of the United States by birth: Those aliens who have come with the intent to become U.S. citizens, who had first complied with the laws of naturalization in declaring their intent and renounce all prior allegiances.
Sen. Trumbull further restates the the goal of the language: “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens…” Note that Trumbull does not say temporarily within our jurisdiction, but completely within our jurisdiction.
Whatever case you are speaking of is not the one that matters. What, by chance, is it?
No case matters. This is not a matter of court ruling. I've already shown you where the Constitution as well as the 14th give Congress plenary power on the issue of naturalization. The court cannot decide who is naturalized. --PERIOD! --END OF!
Saving some money and getting a third world work ethic at the same time; you really are a good Capitalist.I believe a lot of individuals came from all over to donate their time to rebuild New Orleans.Bub, you and some of your cohorts, have no idea just how bad Mexicans can be, none. I dare your sorry ass to live with "illegal" Mexicans for a year or two, then come back here and earn some wisdom. Right how you just sound a like a self righteous prick.
I'm not sure who, "Bub" is, but I am very grateful that illegal immigrants rebuilt my house in New Orleans after Katrina. There were no legal workers to be found anywhere. All of the working class people had their homes wiped out, and moved to other cities. The illegals came and slept in the parks.
Well, the only contractors I could find had nothing but Spanish speaking laborers.
the right seems to be semper fi challenged.Illegals have no place in the United States. A person who applies for a work visa and is given one is not illegal. And it is ridiculous for anyone to imagine that police would go door to door. They would simply wait until an illegal did something wrong and then deport him and any illegal family members.
A child born to an illegal in the US, should also be deported with the family unit. A child belongs with his parents but should be able to re-enter the US when he reaches 21.
Anyone who is not willing to see the logic in what I've stated, is likely only seeking votes for the Democratic party ---- or they wish to keep their household staff. My ancestors certainly needed to go through Ellis Island protocol. I cannot imagine why selected races should receive preferential treatment.
Maybe people are unwilling to agree with your statement because what you are advocating violates the 14th amendment to the Constitution.
