There are none here. That's why I pay too much to rent my mausoleum. Keeps out the garbage. Go down the road a piece where the rent's real cheap, it's infested. Nowhere near worth the savings.
Liberal Democrats are offended by the term anchor baby.
- Thread starter i am herdman
- Start date
There are none here. That's why I pay too much to rent my mausoleum. Keeps out the garbage. Go down the road a piece where the rent's real cheap, it's infested. Nowhere near worth the savings.
Sure thing Donald. There's a constitutional law that says all people born in the U S are citizens of the U S. Period. It doesn't say they become citizens at birth IF their parents have been in the U S for a year. There is no such constitutional law prohibiting out of state students being charged more.
There won't be as big of an issue once illegals are effectively blocked from entering the country.
Stop using an antiquated law as a reason to allow people to abuse it.
I mean, I see why you don't care. You're obviously retirement age and won't be paying the taxes for all the anchor babies and taking care of their illegal parents.
I said earlier that border security would fix the problem, but neither party is willing to address it in a sane manner.
Yeah, I'm using an antiquated law....the Constitution of the United States. Everyone reveres it until they disagree with something in it.
No, my taxes haven't gone to illegal immigrants, since Mexican immigration didn't become a problem until the 1920's.
I haven't really read a lot of the thread, but I'm surprised nobody has refuted E.T.'s repeated copy-and-paste by asking him about children born on our soil to diplomats. They fit the qualification he keeps posting, but they aren't afforded U.S. citizenship.
Well, one man running for POTUS is addressing it. Sounds like you endorse him.
He has said build a wall, with an open gate and welcome arms if you follow the rules about coming here.
Make America Great Again, extragreen.
In included a qualifier: "in a sane manner". Saying you will make Mexico pay for it is not sane.
He already came out as a socialist last week. I don't see how anyone other than an airheaded woman can believe in socialism. It's a great sounding idea, but there's no way it would work.
Like I said, come and take it all. I know now that it's not that great. But if I knew that when I was 16, I'd have quit school and been a lifer at Kroger. And that's how civilization is destroyed.
Like I said, come and take it all. I know now that it's not that great. But if I knew that when I was 16, I'd have quit school and been a lifer at Kroger. And that's how civilization is destroyed.
I understand that this is in response to another poster comparing analogies, but this reminds me of what I posted last week regarding the email-wipe / classified info / FBI - H.Clinton thread (about poor/incomplete legal reporting) - the reporting on this constitutional issue certainly leaves the impression that your statement is true, despite the fact that it is not true.
The pertinent constitutional amendment (14th Amdt's so-called "Citizenship Clause") states in relevant part:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and [ii] subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." (indexing numerals not in original - added here)
As with any law (whether constitutional, statutory, or judicial precedent), it is conceptually easier to break down the law into its elements. Here, for a person to have U.S. citizenship, there are two requirements: be born / naturalized in the US, and [ii] be subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
Despite the 14th Amdt being around for 150 years, element [ii] has not been litigated and interpreted by SCOTUS. There are (at least) two divergent schools-of-thought on [ii]: one suggests that the language is surplusage and automatic upon birth on US soil (but this violates most of the cannons of statutory construction); while the other suggests that [ii] being "subject to the jurisdiction of the US" is not possible for parents in the US illegally, and therefore, any offspring born here are similarly illegal and not subject to jurisdiction (the corollary being that the illegal parents and offspring are subject to the jurisdiction where the parents are permanently and legally domiciled).
I think the latter is the more appropriate interpretation, but who knows when SCOTUS will actually entertain such a case and make a decision.
What gets reported as "law" is generally policies that have been adopted (and embodied in executive orders) that suggest the offspring of illegals born in the US are US citizens, but may (under certain circumstances) be deported until the US born child turns 18 (and who may then sponsor the parents for immigration and naturalization at 21). While policies may be implemented, policies are down the food-chain with regard to "force-of-law" questions, below regulations implemented and enforced by executive branch agencies.
One case that is getting a lot of attention in this area is United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which held that Ark, a child born in the United States to legal resident Chinese immigrants, was a birthright U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. Dictum (statements not essential to deciding a case) from that opinion have been teased into the policies noted above. However, the Ark-decision did not address element [ii] since Ark's parents were legal residents (and thus subject to US jurisdiction).
Time will tell whether [ii] is interpreted in a way that continues (and codifies) current policy(ies) or whether it forces a contraction of current policy(ies).
Despite your opinion, which does not make what I said false, the law is being followed as I stated. Which as of now, makes it the law until/if it's otherwise acted upon.
Really? How do they not for this statement you have used more than the one time in this thread?
" There's a constitutional law that says all people born in the U S are citizens of the U S. Period. It doesn't saythey become citizens at birth IF theirparents have been in the U S for a year."
The same goes for those that disagree with what you said. All any candidate has suggested is that the policy within the framework of the law be changed. As the 14th Amendment also permits.
Oh, a qualifier that you didn't mention in that post?
So, when you said "period," referring to your statement that all people who are born in the U.S. being citizens of the U.S., you didn't really mean "period," as there are now "qualifiers" that make your statement false.
Period.
I have more than once quoted the clause WITH the qualifier. And since we have been talking almost exclusively about the children of illegal immigrants, I was making the point about THEM. Do you also want to bring up the eligibility of martians landing in Beckley and their children?
Regarding the citizenship of illegal immigrants born in the United States, period. Yes...period.
Socialism. Anybody who wants it doesn't understand how civilization is built and sustained. They don't understand how people really function. They live in a fantasy world where everyone would do their best just for the greater good.
What's more puzzling about this particular case is the guy wanting socialism also believes in hellfire and brimstone to scare people right.
What's more puzzling about this particular case is the guy wanting socialism also believes in hellfire and brimstone to scare people right.
Democratic socialism rejects the social democratic view of reform through state intervention within capitalism, seeing capitalism as incompatible with the democratic values of freedom, equality and solidarity. From this perspective, democratic socialists believe that the issues inherent to capitalism can only be solved by a transition from capitalism to socialism, by superseding private property with some form of social ownership, and that any attempt to address the economic contradictions of capitalism through reforms will only cause problems to emerge elsewhere in the economy.[4][5]
Does anyone see Greed actually giving his employees his business??? lmao. Go ahead hypocrite. Give them the business. No need to wait for Bernie. Set the example.
The fallacy of such a philosophy is the premise that capitalism has "contradictions". No, there are no contradictions.. it's pretty straight forward. True capitalism offers No guarantees. No promises. The only given is you have to work for whatever you want to attain. Unfortunately the ignorant don't understand that.
$15 an hour minimum wage. That's what your candidate wants. That's the same thing as what I'm talking about. If you're going to pay everybody enough to have everything, then what's the use in trying to be more than the bottom?
Why would anyone put forth the extra effort, education, training, etc. required for a professional career if you can have it all bagging groceries?
You probably think everybody can do everything. If they could, they would. They can't. And the ones who could wouldn't under your system.
Nope, but it will buy them pretty much everything you can get with $30/hour. It may not be as nice, but it'll be the same stuff.
You're never going to get back at the true high rollers with 50 yachts, but paying grocery baggers $15 an hour is a spit in the face to people who do more important work for slightly more money.
If they would have paid me $15 an hour to bag groceries when I was 16, I'd still be doing it today. I'd be happy as a pig in shit back in the hills instead of trying to accomplish more in life.
You're never going to get back at the true high rollers with 50 yachts, but paying grocery baggers $15 an hour is a spit in the face to people who do more important work for slightly more money.
If they would have paid me $15 an hour to bag groceries when I was 16, I'd still be doing it today. I'd be happy as a pig in shit back in the hills instead of trying to accomplish more in life.
Not too many places have bag boys these days. I remember back in 1978 when I bagged them over at the Kroger in Oak Hill. That was a pain in the ass job. Bagging groceries isn't as easy as it seems. Plus, you get those old hags wanting you to put their items into a bag a certain way. Plus, the bag boy always had to go out and round up the damn buggies. To this day, it pisses me off when lazy fvcks leave their buggy right beside their damn station wagon. They just can't take the few steps to put it back in the rack.
Hell yeah. And why wouldn't everybody else in my shoes do the same? We'll stomp on in there and bag circles around the people doing it now. Then they'll be out of work, but oh well. They could have voted against it.
That's right. Just walk in there and take their job. That should make you happy, if that's possible.
Yep, it would be hilarious.
Most minimum wage workers are unreliable and idiotic. I show up for work everyday on time. Whatever needs done, I hurry up as fast as I can to get it over with. Most other people show up late, miss days and work at a snail's pace. Takes them forever to get anything done.
Ok, then it's a bureaucratic 2nd amendment decision to let regular citizens walk around this country with guns strapped to their side. Works both ways.
No, the 2nd Amendment has been ruled upon in many cases. The resident attorney in this forum gave you a detailed outline of the 14th Amendment above.
The resident attorney is allowed to voice his opinion. It is in the minority. The law has been followed as it is now for over 100 years. And as of right now, it is the LAW, not a bureaucratic decision, that the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States are citizens of the United States and have all citizenship rights.
Instead of arguing facts and looking like a douche, why don't you explain to us why your bleeding heart cares so much about this topic? You don't live in an area where this is even an issue. As banker brought up, you haven't been paying tax dollars all your life to support these deadbeats, nor will you be paying much longer since you're retirement age.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
HERDNATION.COM Getting To Know: Jibreel Al-Amin
- Latest: Chris McLaughlin