Dismiss Notice
Thanks for being a member of our community. Please donate toward site expenses if you can.

Trump renews threat to end ' rediculous' birthright citizenship

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by PARTIZAN1, Aug 21, 2019.

Page 9 of 13
  1. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, lol.
     
    rahl, Aug 22, 2019
    #201
  2. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,736
    Likes Received:
    46,529
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What does the comma mean. Go ahead and explain it for me.
     
    vman12, Aug 22, 2019
    #202
  3. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your thread doesn’t change constitutional law. You can’t remove birthright citizenship without an amendment. This is reality.
     
    rahl, Aug 22, 2019
    #203
  4. Mac-7

    Mac-7 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Messages:
    86,664
    Likes Received:
    17,636
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We should deport all parents of anchor babies on the US
     
    Mac-7, Aug 22, 2019
    #204
    ArchStanton and vman12 like this.
  5. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Irrelevant.

    Nope. It’s why their children are US citizens.
     
    rahl, Aug 22, 2019
    #205
  6. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It means.............and. Your quote is not describing 3 separate classes.
     
    rahl, Aug 22, 2019
    #206
  7. Chester_Murphy

    Chester_Murphy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7,503
    Likes Received:
    2,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nope
     
    Chester_Murphy, Aug 22, 2019
    #207
  8. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,736
    Likes Received:
    46,529
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So, if I say, "I like Jeeps, RX7's, and Vipers", I really only like Vipers.

    Thanks for the English lesson.
     
    vman12, Aug 22, 2019
    #208
  9. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,802
    Likes Received:
    11,298
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The meaning of that Constitutional provision hinges on the exact meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" and "resides".

    Many people here may not realize this, but it would be a logical fallacy to assume the legal meaning of those words are exactly the same as their literal plain-English meanings.

    For example, the law does not consider someone a "resident" just because the slept the night somewhere, even though technically they are currently "residing" there. And the law's concept of "jurisdiction" has some notable differences from the actual physically literal one.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2019
    kazenatsu, Aug 22, 2019
    #209
  10. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your misunderstand of grammar isn’t my problem.
     
    rahl, Aug 22, 2019
    #210
  11. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And that meaning was settled by the supreme court in plyler v doe.
     
    rahl, Aug 22, 2019
    #211
  12. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,802
    Likes Received:
    11,298
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Which was inconsistent with a previous supreme court precedent. ( Elk v Wilkins, 1884 )

    So it can be overturned once again.

    (By the way, I don't think the actual rulings themselves of these different cases are inconsistent, only some of the legal concepts they tried to propound in their written opinions. I think the court made the right decisions, but not necessarily for the reasons they wrote.)
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2019
    kazenatsu, Aug 22, 2019
    #212
  13. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,736
    Likes Received:
    46,529
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, "my misunderstand of grammar."

    Are you a professional comedian, out of curiosity?
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2019
    vman12, Aug 22, 2019
    #213
    Bluesguy likes this.
  14. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    154,356
    Likes Received:
    39,277
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They were legally domiciled here which is why Wong was a citizen.
     
    Bluesguy, Aug 22, 2019
    #214
    ArchStanton and Mac-7 like this.
  15. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    34,802
    Likes Received:
    11,298
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, that's right. Wong's case doesn't automatically translate into the case for babies of illegal aliens.
    For one thing, Wong had been residing in the country for 21 years, and more importantly, legally residing there. His parents were legally residing in the country as well when his mother had given birth.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2019
    kazenatsu, Aug 22, 2019
    #215
    ArchStanton likes this.
  16. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Or that when a Mexican illegal alien is arrested for a serious felony like murder, the Mexican Embassy has to be notified that one of their citizens was arrested because the Mexican government still has jurisdiction over that Mexican citizen when on U.S. soil.

    Anchor babies are not American citizens.

     
    APACHERAT, Aug 22, 2019
    #216
    PrincipleInvestment and ArchStanton like this.
  17. PARTIZAN1

    PARTIZAN1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2015
    Messages:
    46,848
    Likes Received:
    18,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe it is you who does not understand......Read the second to the lady sentence that starts with " As for birthright citizenship, Sen. Howard said"foreigners" and "aliens" born on U.S. soil are, "of course not citizens:"

    What an idiot Sen Howard was unless you have misquoted him or there are words missing from that quote. A person classified as an alien or foreign must be alive to had that classification. So if you are an aliens of foreigner already means you were already born. You cannot be born on U.S soil is younare already born.

    You need to verify that quote.
     
    PARTIZAN1, Aug 22, 2019
    #217
  18. PARTIZAN1

    PARTIZAN1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2015
    Messages:
    46,848
    Likes Received:
    18,962
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your loss, LOL,
     
    PARTIZAN1, Aug 22, 2019
    #218
  19. Chester_Murphy

    Chester_Murphy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7,503
    Likes Received:
    2,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Can't imagine why.
     
    Chester_Murphy, Aug 22, 2019
    #219
  20. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No it wasn’t. Elk didn’t deal with the definition of jurisdiction.
    .
    No it can’t. Only via amendment.
     
    rahl, Aug 22, 2019
    #220
  21. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I just didn’t fail 4th grade English. Your quote directly refuted your argument.
     
    rahl, Aug 22, 2019
    #221
  22. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Neither does this. And no they don’t. uS has jurisdiction as soon as you step into US soil.

    The US constitution says they are. Sorry.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2019
    rahl, Aug 22, 2019
    #222
  23. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Where does the Constitution says that an anchor baby is an U.S. citizen ?

    The SCOTUS has never ruled on the children of illegal aliens who were born on U.S. soil.
     
    APACHERAT, Aug 22, 2019
    #223
    ArchStanton likes this.
  24. rahl

    rahl Banned

    Joined:
    May 31, 2010
    Messages:
    62,508
    Likes Received:
    7,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    14th amendment.

    US v wong Kim ark. Justice gray specifically states the status of the parent is irrelevant, unless they are a foreign diplomat.
     
    Last edited: Aug 22, 2019
    rahl, Aug 22, 2019
    #224
  25. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Wong kim Ark's parents were legal immigrants who no longer owe their allegiance to the Emperor of China or did the Emperor of China have jurisdiction over Wong's parents.

    Now if Won's parents were have been illegal aliens they would still owe their allegiance to the Emperor of China and the Emperor of China would have jurisdiction over the Chinese aliens who were illegally in the U.S.

    Kinda like when Bill Clinton was living in London and Bill got his draft induction orders in the mail.
    Uncle Sam still had jurisdiction over Slick Willie.
     
    APACHERAT, Aug 22, 2019
    #225
    PrincipleInvestment likes this.
Page 9 of 13

Share This Page