NEWS FLASH!! 50 NAT. SEC. GOPERS SAY TRUMP WILL PUT NATION AT RISK - UNFIT TO BE POTUS
- Thread starter dherd
- Start date
I know you will never do this, but just thought I would give you the opportunity. This is a link to the official Republican Party Platform. Read it, be informed, don't take all you info from filtered sources.
https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf
Now, I doubt you have read this one either. It's the Democratic Party Platform. Read it, be informed. Compare the two documents and I believe what you will really find is that you disagree with parts of both and agree with parts of both. You always seem to try and make these black and white distinctions, and I agree that there are many, but to state that you always fall on the democratic side of these difference is disingenuous.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf
https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf
Now, I doubt you have read this one either. It's the Democratic Party Platform. Read it, be informed. Compare the two documents and I believe what you will really find is that you disagree with parts of both and agree with parts of both. You always seem to try and make these black and white distinctions, and I agree that there are many, but to state that you always fall on the democratic side of these difference is disingenuous.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf
4. Agree that we should deport American citizens. TRUMP HAS STATED HE WOULD DEPORT THE AMERICAN BORN CHILDREN OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-oreilly-donald-trump-immigration-deport-birthright-2015-8
_________________________________________________________
5. Are willing to ban muslims from coming to the country,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2015/12/07/e56266f6-9d2b-11e5-8728-1af6af208198_story.html
What platforms SAY and what their POLICIES are, are different things.
I haven't read the platforms, but which of these ideas does the GOP platform agree with?.......
Raising Workers’ Wages
Protecting and Expanding Social Security
Revitalizing Our Nation’s Postal Service
Reining in Wall Street
Making the Wealthy Pay Their Fair Share of Taxes
Guaranteeing Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights
Addressing Climate Change
Ahhhh yes. Raising workers wages....the hypocrite speaks!! Won't do it himself unless the government tells him to do it.
Wealthy paying their fair share.....the wealthy already pay a majority of the income taxes in this country. It's no surprise that a sweat shop owner like Xgreed doesn't understand this.
Reining in wall st.....might want to explain that one to the current Dem candidate. You realize Trump is the one talking about removing carried interest and reinstituting glass steagal? (Of course you don't. You are a tool)
Guaranteeing lgbt rights??? You mean the same way both Obama and Hillary supported traditional marriage definition in elections past until they needed the votes??
Wealthy paying their fair share.....the wealthy already pay a majority of the income taxes in this country. It's no surprise that a sweat shop owner like Xgreed doesn't understand this.
Reining in wall st.....might want to explain that one to the current Dem candidate. You realize Trump is the one talking about removing carried interest and reinstituting glass steagal? (Of course you don't. You are a tool)
Guaranteeing lgbt rights??? You mean the same way both Obama and Hillary supported traditional marriage definition in elections past until they needed the votes??
Last edited:
Legally, American-born children of illegal immigrants are not citizens and stating or implying that American-born children of illegals are citizens is not law and is not accurate, and makes statement 4 misleading at best. In order, regarding the anchor-baby question, the Constitution does not state that anchor-babies are citizens, the SCOTUS has not interpreted the Constitution as saying so, and there is no US law that says so. The treatment of so-called anchor babies (the non-deportation of parent(s) and anchor baby(ies)) is a policy decision that has been made at the regulatory level and that can change. Professionally, I've seen policy changes launched, promulgated, and implemented (I've even given comments favoring or criticizing such rules). And in government, those are two different animals (law and policy), as a change in law usually requires Congress (although in modern times the SCOTUS has become a super-legislature) while a change in policy merely requires a regulatory agency to promulgate rules.
As was discussed months ago, the anchor-baby issue has never been fully litigated before the SCOTUS, and the Ark decision (1898) did not specifically address the issue since the native Chinese parents had legally immigrated (and been granted citizenship) to the US, thus the child was a duly recognized US citizen. The absence of a direct decision has given rise (as has happened in other instances) to policy decisions being implemented based on the dictum (non-binding) in the Ark opinion. But to say that anchor-babies are citizens is not accurate.
You were the one who said the platform was the problem, now you're saying it's not the platform, it's the policies. Make up your mind.
Thats what extra does. He constantly changes the basis of his argument so in his mind he is never wrong
This is what I said......"What platforms SAY and what their POLICIES are, are different things." Look at that sentence in the same way you would if I'd said 'what politicians SAY and what their POLICIES are, are different things'.
A President could sign an executive order and change the policy and start deportation of such families tomorrow. Until Congress acts to change the laws (to either extend citizenship or deny citizenship based on anchor-babies), or until the States act with a Constitutional Amendment extending or denying citizenship, the current posture of non-deportation is policy-driven (and to say it differently - deportation of such persons/families would not be prohibited by law).
The problem is you consider that A=B=C, no matter what A,B, and C are.
A president could sign an executive order, but deportation would not start tomorrow. It would be in court so fast , it'd make both our heads swim.
If the executive branch, on the authority of the President changing the (non) deportation policy, attempted to deport an anchor-baby and its family (the one's here illegally and with no recognized or authorized legal immigrant status), what law would the executive branch be breaking?
I have no idea. Are you seriously saying that this would not be immediately forced into the judicial system?
Of course not. In the politicized environment we currently occupy, there is no doubt it would be litigated. That doesn't mean a whole lot since lawsuits are filed all the time for a variety of legit and illegitimate reasons.
Instead, I'm asking the basic question - what law would be broken by the executive deporting an illegal immigrant parent (or parents) along with the US-born child?
I already told you I don't know what law. I do know that a significant majority of those who are considered knowledgeable in the field would tell you that deporting an illegal immigrant U S born child would be unconstitutional.
He doesn't understand that part. You could always ask him to "link" to that "significant majority" he claims to know.
Of the significant majority of those who are considered knowledgeable in the field, can any of these folks cite the Constitution or a US law in support of the proposition that the child of an illegal immigrant receives automatic (birthright) citizenship?
i am against auto citizenship, OBVIOUSLY it is the law.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...-you-should-know-about-birthright-citizenship
Not that Olen needs any help here but Dtard's article is slightly inaccurate. No surprise...its NPR.
Here is Section 1 of the 14th Amendment - please indicate where the 14th Amendment says that children born to illegal immigrant / non-citizens automatically become citizens upon birth.
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.
Please indicate where section 1 says that children born to illegal immigrants do not become citizens upon birth.
HERE IS THE CASE THAT SETTLES YOUR CONFUSION.
169 U.S. 649 (1898)
UNITED STATES
v.
WONG KIM ARK.
No. 132.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued March 5, 8, 1897. Decided March 28, 1898.
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
now you'll come back with some sort of gobledy gook claiming
the supreme court found incorrectly in the case or that it does not
say what it clearly says - or that some
obscure reading of some obscure case finds the opposite if you
turn it upside down shake it three times and rub it with alcohol.
thats what lawyers are paid to do - we all understand that.
but the indIsputable truth is this. when a child is born in the u.s.
of parents who are not foreign diplomats, a part of a foreign army,
or on a foreign ship i believe it reads without looking at it again.
IT IS ISSUED A U.S. BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND is a U.S.
CITIZEN AND THE U.S. RECOGNIZES IT AS
SUCH.
now, i disagree with the law as much as you do. i do not
think such a child should be awarded u.s. citzenship, but
to deny that is the law is just absurd.
169 U.S. 649 (1898)
UNITED STATES
v.
WONG KIM ARK.
No. 132.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued March 5, 8, 1897. Decided March 28, 1898.
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
now you'll come back with some sort of gobledy gook claiming
the supreme court found incorrectly in the case or that it does not
say what it clearly says - or that some
obscure reading of some obscure case finds the opposite if you
turn it upside down shake it three times and rub it with alcohol.
thats what lawyers are paid to do - we all understand that.
but the indIsputable truth is this. when a child is born in the u.s.
of parents who are not foreign diplomats, a part of a foreign army,
or on a foreign ship i believe it reads without looking at it again.
IT IS ISSUED A U.S. BIRTH CERTIFICATE AND is a U.S.
CITIZEN AND THE U.S. RECOGNIZES IT AS
SUCH.
now, i disagree with the law as much as you do. i do not
think such a child should be awarded u.s. citzenship, but
to deny that is the law is just absurd.
Last edited:
Are you really going to argue with a lawyer about the laws?
That didn't work out too well the last time.
Stay focused. YOU asserted that the 14th Amendment supports your position that US-born children of illegal immigrants confers citizenship to the US-born child. That is YOUR position. Explain how the 14th Amendment supports this position.
You have short-term memory issues? Not only was this case discussed in the previous go-around on this subject, I also made reference up-thread to the Ark decision - the one you wasted your time copying. To explain one more time:
the issue in the Ark case was whether a US-born child of Chinese parents, the parents having had permanent domicile and residence in the US, became a US citizen upon his birth.
Notice that the Chinese parents were in the US LEGALLY - having recognized permanent domicile and residence in the US.
THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^ is different from the situation where the parents are in the US illegally.
Had Ark's parent been in the US illegally, and had Ark been born in the US, and if the SCOTUS had determined that Ark was a US-citizen based on his birth here, THEN the argument that Ark supports this position would have a leg to stand. But those were not the facts - and that makes a difference.
As I noted before, it defies logic to extend the benefits of citizenship when being born in the US is rooted in an act (illegal entry; by-passing legal immigration formalities) that violates US immigration law.
You asserted that it does not. That is YOUR position.
Here's my explanation......All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
Isn't that the same question you asked when another 'authority' was telling me that the object of a prepositional phrase was the subject of a sentence? How'd that work out last time?
A British couple goes to Orlando on vacation. The wife is pregnant, but not expecting to deliver for another month. The stress of the trip causes her to go into labor and she gives birth to her baby in Orlando. If the parents so choose, can they declare their child a U.S. Citizen?
I don't think the parents have a choice, the child is a U S citizen. (Far as I can tell)
THE SUPREME COURT FOUND THAT CHILDREN BORN IN THE U.S.
OF "NEGRO" SLAVES BROUGHT TO THIS COUNTRY ARE U.S.
CITIZENS. I AM SURE YOU WOULD AGREE THAT THE SLAVES
WERE NOT HERE LEGALLY. STILL, THE SUPREME COURT FOUND
THEIR CHILDREN TO BE CITIZENS.
FURTHERMORE THE COURT FOUND THE FOLLOWING FOUR
EXCEPTIONS AND ONLY THESE FOUR EXCEPTIONS. I DO NOT
SEE YOUR CLASSIFICATION OF LEGAL OR ILLEGAL ALIENS LISTED.
the supreme court found four exceptions to their finding that everyone born in the
u.s. is a citizent. they are: QUOTING SUPREME COURT RULING:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including(IT DOES NOT SAY LIMITED TO IT SAYS INCLUDING) all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. (NOTE THAT ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE EXCEPTIONS)The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons
Dtard do you know what constitutes being a resident alien? Hint it involves resident status. This being an illegal alien doesn't qualify as a resident alien
Too bad you don't understand how to read a legal opinion. Otherwise you would understand the following: appeals courts are asked to review one or more questions and then make a decision to affirm or reverse a lower court (sometimes there is an in-between of affirm-in-part and reverse-in-part).
How many questions were presented in Ark? Answer: ONE. The question was: does a US-born child of Chinese parents, the parents having had permanent domicile and residence in the US, became a US citizen upon his birth?
The court's determination? The answer to that question was: YES, a US-born child of Chinese parents that were legally and permanently domiciled in the US was a citizen upon birth.
That is what is called a "holding" - the ruling or decision of a court embodied in a written opinion.
Any statements, including explanations or reasoning, not connected to the holding is called obiter dictum, a Latin phrase that literally means "something said in passing", and in the context of a written legal opinion is a judicial comment made in an opinion that is unnecessary to the decision and therefore not binding precedent. What you quoted is obiter dictum because the Chinese parents were legal residents of the US (as opposed to illegal residents or immigrants), and none of that language is necessary for determining whether a child born in the US to legal residents is a citizen.
As such, Ark did not answer the question about illegal residents/immigrants. Reliance on Ark is misplaced.
