How can you be for Bernie Sanders anyway? The panthers really don't like him. They shut down his rallies. He just walks away like a defeated old man.
If any of you guys vote for Hillary Clinton
- Thread starter i am herdman
- Start date
Because Bernie is for the Middle Class and for the younger Generations and is Against the corporate influence that has destroyed America
You are not really black then. Damnation. I am a hayseed from WV and I have heard that on multiple occasions.
You are not down with the brothers.
You all are utopians who have no idea what it takes to maintain a civilization. You're not going to motivate anybody to do anything other than bag groceries if you get your way.
Forget about the professional class. Why waste your prime in college for that if you can do just as well behind a counter at a grocery store?
Forget about the professional class. Why waste your prime in college for that if you can do just as well behind a counter at a grocery store?
I am serious. You might have dark skin, but if you are a real brother you have had to have heard disparaging remarks about Mexicans and/or Japanese. Especially the Mexicans.
Did this guy seriously graduate from Marshall? They better get him off here if he did. The NCAA would shut down Marshall athletics if they read this shit.
I live on Long Island where there is a ton of Hispanics, most people don't like Salvadorians and Guatamaleans but never a word against Mexicans
Reposting Greed just isn't the correct thing to do in this moment. Posting a portion of the constitution while ignoring its context to the remainder of the document makes you look foolish.
Can you even spot the difference between the Guatemalans and the Mexicans?
Don't give me that stuff. I am in town with a high school full of blacks and Mexicans(among others from Central America) and they don't like each other. Hell, they have boxing matches behind the school. Mexicans vs the Blacks.
Not that I want to get in the middle of this, but since everyone is at least partially wrong, I will.
A child born to illegals in this country is, in fact, a US citizen. However, the United States is under no obligation to allow the parent, or the child, to remain in this country as the child's citizenship is not recognized until they reach the age of majority, which is 21. So if a mother crosses the border, pops out little Juan and thinks that means she or the baby has a "right" to stay in the country, she is incorrect. She is still illegal and the government will not keep the child without the parent.
The proper course of action, according to the law, is that she and the baby are deported, but the child can return when they are 21.
A child born to illegals in this country is, in fact, a US citizen. However, the United States is under no obligation to allow the parent, or the child, to remain in this country as the child's citizenship is not recognized until they reach the age of majority, which is 21. So if a mother crosses the border, pops out little Juan and thinks that means she or the baby has a "right" to stay in the country, she is incorrect. She is still illegal and the government will not keep the child without the parent.
The proper course of action, according to the law, is that she and the baby are deported, but the child can return when they are 21.
However, children of undocumented immigrants who were born in the United States become U.S. citizens automatically. The parent(s)' immigration status is not taken into account. This is due to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reads that:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.
Citizenship is the highest status available under the U.S. immigration laws. As a native-born U.S. citizen, the child in question will be granted all of the rights that every other citizen is entitled to, such as the rights to vote, assume public office, and be immune from deportation (removal).
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.
Citizenship is the highest status available under the U.S. immigration laws. As a native-born U.S. citizen, the child in question will be granted all of the rights that every other citizen is entitled to, such as the rights to vote, assume public office, and be immune from deportation (removal).
Sorry, you and your source are wrong. Unfortunately, you didn't provide your source so I could discredit it properly.
Oh, here's a recent article which gives you proper reference:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-myth-of-the-anchor-baby-deportation-defense/
Here's another.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andyjsemotiuk/2014/09/22/immigration-the-myth-of-the-anchor-baby/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-myth-of-the-anchor-baby-deportation-defense/
Here's another.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andyjsemotiuk/2014/09/22/immigration-the-myth-of-the-anchor-baby/
"Donald Trump said it; Jeb Bush said it, too.
Frankly, a whole range of people have used the term "anchor baby" this week in public discussions about Trump's immigration-related policy ideas -- ideas that include an end to the nearly 150-year-old practice of granting citizenship to anyone born in the United States.
It's the former, known as "birthright citizenship," which is delineated in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. And as all sorts of public figures have discussed the future of the 14th Amendment this week, the more colloquial -- many say pejorative -- term "anchor baby" has come up over and over again.
But the anchor baby, while potent politically, is a largely mythical idea.
Here's the basic concept: People, namely women, come to the United States illegally and give birth to children, generally for the specific purpose of bolstering legal attempts of the child's parents remain in the United States or even become citizens themselves.
Looser definitions suggest "anchor babies" can simply be intended to help illegal-immigrant parents access taxpayer-financed public education and/or social services through their citizen children -- another political hot button, to be sure. (Even here, the law limits those benefits to the children themselves.)
But usually the debate has been about the residency of the parents, who after all are supposed to be using the child as their "anchor."
This is the definition that has little legal underpinning. For illegal immigrant parents, being the parent of a U.S. citizen child almost never forms the core of a successful defense in an immigration court. In short, if the undocumented parent of a U.S.-born child is caught in the United States, he or she legally faces the very same risk of deportation as any other immigrant."
_____Washington Post
The Forbes article is simply wrong.
Frankly, a whole range of people have used the term "anchor baby" this week in public discussions about Trump's immigration-related policy ideas -- ideas that include an end to the nearly 150-year-old practice of granting citizenship to anyone born in the United States.
It's the former, known as "birthright citizenship," which is delineated in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. And as all sorts of public figures have discussed the future of the 14th Amendment this week, the more colloquial -- many say pejorative -- term "anchor baby" has come up over and over again.
But the anchor baby, while potent politically, is a largely mythical idea.
Here's the basic concept: People, namely women, come to the United States illegally and give birth to children, generally for the specific purpose of bolstering legal attempts of the child's parents remain in the United States or even become citizens themselves.
Looser definitions suggest "anchor babies" can simply be intended to help illegal-immigrant parents access taxpayer-financed public education and/or social services through their citizen children -- another political hot button, to be sure. (Even here, the law limits those benefits to the children themselves.)
But usually the debate has been about the residency of the parents, who after all are supposed to be using the child as their "anchor."
This is the definition that has little legal underpinning. For illegal immigrant parents, being the parent of a U.S. citizen child almost never forms the core of a successful defense in an immigration court. In short, if the undocumented parent of a U.S.-born child is caught in the United States, he or she legally faces the very same risk of deportation as any other immigrant."
_____Washington Post
The Forbes article is simply wrong.
Generally speaking, a person can become a U.S. citizen in one of four ways. First, by being born in the United States or one of its territories. - http://immigration.findlaw.com/citizenship/u-s-citizenship-through-parents-or-by-birth.html/
Children of undocumented (illegal) immigrants who were born in the United States become U.S. citizens automatically - children born outside of the U.S. do not.http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo...ld-undocumented-immigrant-become-citizen.html
If you were born on U.S. soil, were born to U.S. citizen parents, or became a naturalized U.S. citizen and have been living in the United States, you clearly have U.S. citizenship. However, many other people are U.S. citizens and don't know it. For instance, you may be a U.S. citizen if you have direct ancestors who were U.S. citizens, even if you were born elsewhere, or if your parents became U.S. citizens when you were a minor.
U.S. citizenship can be obtained in one of four ways:
birth in the United States or one of its territories
birth to U.S. citizen parents (called "acquisition" of citizenship)
naturalization (obtaining citizenship after an application and exam), or
naturalization of one's parents (called "derivation" of citizenship). http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/us-citizenship-birth-parents-29750.html
Amendment XIV
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Children of undocumented (illegal) immigrants who were born in the United States become U.S. citizens automatically - children born outside of the U.S. do not.http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo...ld-undocumented-immigrant-become-citizen.html
If you were born on U.S. soil, were born to U.S. citizen parents, or became a naturalized U.S. citizen and have been living in the United States, you clearly have U.S. citizenship. However, many other people are U.S. citizens and don't know it. For instance, you may be a U.S. citizen if you have direct ancestors who were U.S. citizens, even if you were born elsewhere, or if your parents became U.S. citizens when you were a minor.
U.S. citizenship can be obtained in one of four ways:
birth in the United States or one of its territories
birth to U.S. citizen parents (called "acquisition" of citizenship)
naturalization (obtaining citizenship after an application and exam), or
naturalization of one's parents (called "derivation" of citizenship). http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/us-citizenship-birth-parents-29750.html
Amendment XIV
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
No fever, what extra doesn't understand is that what he linked has nothing to do with the articles I posted or the concept that I am discussing.
I have already said that if you are born in the US then you are a US citizen (there are some exceptions to that though).
My point is that it in no way grants any type of legal status or citizenship to the parents. In fact, it could severely extend the time period for which the parents would have to wait to try and enter the country legally. Additionally, the baby born here can not impact, or partition, the process of getting citizenship for the parents until they reach the age of majority, which is 21 in the US.
Given all that, which is completely accurate, there are two legal options, the parents can be deported and take their US citizen baby with them, in which case the child can re enter the country legally as a citizen once reaching the age of majority, or the parents can leave the child here if they can leave it with legal guardians who have citizenship or legal immigrant status.
I have already said that if you are born in the US then you are a US citizen (there are some exceptions to that though).
My point is that it in no way grants any type of legal status or citizenship to the parents. In fact, it could severely extend the time period for which the parents would have to wait to try and enter the country legally. Additionally, the baby born here can not impact, or partition, the process of getting citizenship for the parents until they reach the age of majority, which is 21 in the US.
Given all that, which is completely accurate, there are two legal options, the parents can be deported and take their US citizen baby with them, in which case the child can re enter the country legally as a citizen once reaching the age of majority, or the parents can leave the child here if they can leave it with legal guardians who have citizenship or legal immigrant status.
Even a dummy like me knows she kicks ass and takes names. She is a crazy liberal. I think the clintons cant live unless the goverment pays their way. Its been like that for many many years too Im on disabability after killing myself in the mines and my health will cut my life short.Hillary needs the LORD. If that happened she would be great great great.
"However, the United States is under no obligation to allow the parent, or the child, to remain in this country as the child's citizenship is not recognized until they reach the age of majority, which is 21."
WRONG
"So if a mother crosses the border, pops out little Juan and thinks that means she or the baby has a "right" to stay in the country, she is incorrect."
WRONG
"She is still illegal and the government will not keep the child without the parent.
WRONG
"The proper course of action, according to the law, is that she and the baby are deported, but the child can return when they are 21."
WRONG
WRONG
"So if a mother crosses the border, pops out little Juan and thinks that means she or the baby has a "right" to stay in the country, she is incorrect."
WRONG
"She is still illegal and the government will not keep the child without the parent.
WRONG
"The proper course of action, according to the law, is that she and the baby are deported, but the child can return when they are 21."
WRONG
No, because the Constitution says so. The MOMENT a child is natural born in the United States, the child is a citizen of the United States with ALL rights of a citizen.
This is by far the most inaccurate statement on Constitutional law and history ever posted in this forum.
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth was specifically to address the citizenship of blacks, as it was intended to overturn the Dred Scott decision. Congress was concerned the Supreme Court would overturn the recently passed civil rights act based on that precedent. In fact, it was argured at the time the Fourteenth did NOT apply to Indiana, as they were members of sovereign tribes. The question of their citizenship was not settled until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.
Seriously, do you just make up your own facts?
Then provide the facts if its inaccurate. The constitution says what it says.
No. Some of us have a life during the weekend. Travel. Have some fun. I usually don't hang out in parked cars on a dead end street for entertainment.
No. I didn't make it up but I definitely could have made my opinion a little more clear when I was typing my reply on a phone.
Native Americans
During the original congressional debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause[41]—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes Native Americans who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."[42] According to historian Glenn W. LaFantasie of Western Kentucky University, "A good number of his fellow senators supported his view of the citizenship clause."[41] Others also agreed that the children of ambassadors and foreign ministers were to be excluded.[43][44]
Senator James Rood Doolittle of Wisconsin asserted that all Native Americans were subject to United States jurisdiction, so that the phrase "Indians not taxed" would be preferable,[45] but Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull and Howard disputed this, arguing that the federal government did not have full jurisdiction over Native American tribes, which govern themselves and make treaties with the United States.[46][47] In Elk v. Wilkins (1884),[48] the clause's meaning was tested regarding whether birth in the United States automatically extended national citizenship. The Supreme Court held that Native Americans who voluntarily quit their tribes did not automatically gain national citizenship.[49] The issue was resolved with the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which granted full U.S. citizenship to indigenous peoples
Exactly. I was right.
The question about Indians only came up because the vast majority of those in Congress didn't want Indians to have citizenship. That has nothing to do with why it was passed.
The question about Indians only came up because the vast majority of those in Congress didn't want Indians to have citizenship. That has nothing to do with why it was passed.
Fever,
I have a life outside of this forum as I don't live with mommy and I do actually have to pay for my home.
In addition, I get tired of arguing with Greed. Hell, I am not sure what side he is on half the time. He just likes to argue. He is probably for illegal immigration so he can hire cheaper labor.
I have a life outside of this forum as I don't live with mommy and I do actually have to pay for my home.
In addition, I get tired of arguing with Greed. Hell, I am not sure what side he is on half the time. He just likes to argue. He is probably for illegal immigration so he can hire cheaper labor.
I don't think I have been proven wrong.
You say there is no debating it, well guess what. It is going to be debated this Presidential election and it is likely headed to court(s).
The constitution proves you wrong.
And I didn't say it wasn't being debated, I asked WHO was debating it. In order to change the way the citizenship clause is followed, the supreme court would have to rule differently, or there would need to be an amendment to the constitution, as far as I can tell.
Nobody takes job, its either your going for them or not. Just another dumb ass excuse
The black men ain't working in no fields. They did their time back in the 1800's working the Southern plantations. 'dat shit ain't happening no more.
Yes, they do. They are taking the jobs and driving down labor rates. Who is hurt the most? Blacks and other minorities and entry level workers.
Driving down labor rates? Because they go in and asking to be paid cheaper, or do business offer them a lower wage and they take it instead of negotiating the rate?
And like I said whose fault is that. The person looking for work to pay his bills or the fact the wages in America doesn't reflect the SOL in America?? Nobody goes to a job asking to be paid less. Lets not be ignorant
Fever if the illegals weren't coming in businesses wouldn't offer them low pay.
And re the standard of living look how fat our poor people are. Some have better shoes and cars than I do. Our standard of living for our poor is much better than most places.
And yes we need to punish those businesses that hire illegals. They are taking jobs from able bodied Americans. And yes I know that will drive costs up. But I would rather an American have a job than an illegal alien
Last edited:
I can hire a Mexican painter to do some painting around my house and he will do it for $300. The white man will want $900. The black man probably won't do it.
If I own a landscaping company am I going to hire a Mexican for $8 an hour or a white guy for $15? Remember the Mexican will work cheap and off the books(he might have to). Same thing for construction.
