Announcement

Collapse

The Forum needs your support!!

As you shop this holiday season, please remember to use the forum's Amazon.com link (listed in the menu as "Amazon Link") to add items to your cart and purchase them. The forum gets a small commission from every item sold and the commission increases based on the number of items sold in a month. (So even buying a 99 cent MP3 helps!)

Additionally, the forum gets a "bounty" for various offers at Amazon.com. For instance, if you sign up for a 30 day free trial of Amazon Prime, the forum will earn $3. If you create a wedding or baby registry, the forum earns $3. And creating an Amazon Business account will send a $15 commission our way.

If you have an Amazon Echo, you need a free trial of Amazon Music!! We will earn $3 and it's free to you!

Your personal information is completely private, I only get a list of items that were ordered/shipped via the link, no names or locations or anything. This does not cost you anything extra and it helps pays the operating costs of this forum which continue to go up as our commissions have gone down. Thank you for your support!! --Deborah

Here is the link:
Click here to shop at Amazon.com
See more
See less

Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post

    Follow our conversation from yesterday if you'd like to understand why Trump stripping citizenship away from people born in the US through Executive Order is unlikely to hold up to legal challenge. The text of the 14th Amendment plainly grants citizenship through birth and the only debate is over the meaning of the words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Those words have never been challenged at the Supreme Court in the context of illegal aliens because at the time the 14th Amendment was written, there were no federal immigration laws and no such thing as an "illegal alien.

    The Supreme Court in 1898 DID rule that if someone is born to foreign citizens who are in the US legally, then that person is a US citizen. It's my understanding that Trump wants to end citizenship for people like that also.

    Birthright citizenship isn't a policy. It's enshrined in the Constitution. You might not like that, but there it is.
    the precedent set through the courts would suggest that a child born on US soil of parents who are citizens of a foreign nation do not qualify for Citizenship, unless they are legal permanent residents of the US.

    but ignoring that for a min, there is no court ruling or law that deals with citizenship for children born on US soil for illegal aliens. There is, for example, a difference in the Amendment "subject TO the jurisdiction thereof" and "within its jurisdiction". Why does the federal bureaucracy, of which Trump is in charge, treat them as automatic US Citizens? Who made that rule? Who made that exception? There is no law passed by congress that grants the federal bureaucracy the authority to treat children born on US soil to illegal residents as US citizens, even the text of the Amendment is unclear. This has never been adjudicated in court or legislated in congress, so why are they granted US Citizenship, and why as the head of said federal bureaucracy, can't Trump change it if the Amendment itself doesn't specify children of illegals? Is the federal bureaucracy acting on it's own authority? if so, wouldn't the head of that federal bureaucracy have the same authority?

    Comment


    • oh I heard of it just never read it

      rich is dead his killer is still out there they say it was robbery but nothing was taken. the DNC chairman obviously thinks its something else

      why do you two hate donna brazille?

      far as the 14th amendment goes you two are ok with people coming here just to have their kids become citizens--think it was 60 minutes that did a report on Russian mommies going to florida to have kids so they could be us citizens--that doesnt bother you?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by crashcourse View Post
        oh I heard of it just never read it

        rich is dead his killer is still out there they say it was robbery but nothing was taken. the DNC chairman obviously thinks its something else

        why do you two hate donna brazille?

        far as the 14th amendment goes you two are ok with people coming here just to have their kids become citizens--think it was 60 minutes that did a report on Russian mommies going to florida to have kids so they could be us citizens--that doesnt bother you?
        cbs had a piece on it. RUSSIAN COLLUSION!!!!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Kapture1 View Post

          the precedent set through the courts would suggest that a child born on US soil of parents who are citizens of a foreign nation do not qualify for Citizenship, unless they are legal permanent residents of the US.

          but ignoring that for a min, there is no court ruling or law that deals with citizenship for children born on US soil for illegal aliens. There is, for example, a difference in the Amendment "subject TO the jurisdiction thereof" and "within its jurisdiction". Why does the federal bureaucracy, of which Trump is in charge, treat them as automatic US Citizens? Who made that rule? Who made that exception? There is no law passed by congress that grants the federal bureaucracy the authority to treat children born on US soil to illegal residents as US citizens, even the text of the Amendment is unclear. This has never been adjudicated in court or legislated in congress, so why are they granted US Citizenship, and why as the head of said federal bureaucracy, can't Trump change it if the Amendment itself doesn't specify children of illegals? Is the federal bureaucracy acting on it's own authority? if so, wouldn't the head of that federal bureaucracy have the same authority?
          I've been reading a decent amount of the congressional debate from that website you linked to yesterday and it seems pretty clear now that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part had much more to do with the question of whether American Indians were citizens or not. There was lots of argument back and forth on the status of tribes, which would have been a much hotter topic in 1866 than foreign immigration -- when again, there were no federal immigration laws.

          Comment


          • didn't answer the question

            are you ok with russian mommies flying over here --- having their kids over here--just so they could become US citizens

            couple of them stayed in a trump hotel IIRC

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post

              I've been reading a decent amount of the congressional debate from that website you linked to yesterday and it seems pretty clear now that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part had much more to do with the question of whether American Indians were citizens or not. There was lots of argument back and forth on the status of tribes, which would have been a much hotter topic in 1866 than foreign immigration -- when again, there were no federal immigration laws.
              Exactly right. John Conness set it straight.

              Comment


              • they are called anchor babies --Chinese are doing it also--costs 50,000 from what I read

                Comment


                • Originally posted by crashcourse View Post
                  didn't answer the question

                  are you ok with russian mommies flying over here --- having their kids over here--just so they could become US citizens

                  couple of them stayed in a trump hotel IIRC
                  If you don't like it, get to legislating. I personally don't care, I think you panic too much about birth tourism. But then again, you pushed the Seth Rich conspiracy so you are likely to panic about a lot of things.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post

                    I've been reading a decent amount of the congressional debate from that website you linked to yesterday and it seems pretty clear now that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part had much more to do with the question of whether American Indians were citizens or not. There was lots of argument back and forth on the status of tribes, which would have been a much hotter topic in 1866 than foreign immigration -- when again, there were no federal immigration laws.
                    right, because they are technically citizens to a nation that is not the US. And yes, Indian tribes are treated as their own nations. so the court case was about the child born to parents who were citizens of a different nation was ruled not to be a US citizen, even though the child was born in the US. So where did the authority for the decision to grant automatic citizenship to children born of foreign citizens here ILLEGALLY in the US come from?
                    Last edited by Kapture1; October 31st, 2018, 03:36 PM.

                    Comment


                    • mh38ucgagkv11.jpg?width=693&auto=webp&s=d3a9d31c96861262a9b4c7f76951d629ba3360d4.jpg

                      Comment


                      • Nah don't panic about that --they kinda pay their own way

                        nationally all these illegal aliens do is add to the debt in one way or another.

                        birthright babies do the same thing--they add to cost of running this country

                        I'm all for legal immigration cap the number cap the expenses

                        but illegal immigrants and birthright babies certain are an economoc burden California and texas and Arizona Oklahoma and new mexico can do without

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by crashcourse View Post
                          we got 15!!!
                          Would have been 14...but in 1998 decapitating facemasks were legal in the litter box...
                          Shut the fuck up Donny!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Kapture1 View Post

                            right, because they are technically citizens to a nation that is not the US. And yes, Indian tribes are treated as their own nations. so the court case was about the child born to parents who were citizens of a different nation was ruled not to be a US citizen, even though the child was born in the US. So where did the authority for the decision to grant automatic citizenship to children born of foreign citizens here ILLEGALLY in the US come from?
                            The authority to grant citizenship to ANY child born in the US comes from the language of the 14th Amendment itself. And the 1898 case determined that the child born is the US was a US citizen, even if its parents were not citizens. In that case the parents were legal residents. Like I said, the only way the 14th Amendment does not include children of illegals is if you believe that 5-word clause ("subject to") applies to them. And that requires making a non-originalist argument, a type of argument that the conservative Supreme Court justices will not enjoy making.

                            Which is why you probably would ultimately have to pass a new Amendment OR have radically tougher border enforcement.

                            Comment


                            • The grifters are beginning to turn on each other as they realize there's only so much room at the trough and their time in the sun may not be as long as they thought.





                              Comment


                              • To reiterate what was said yesterday, the fact that there was no illegal immigrant in the 1860s means the amendment is silent on the issue. One will have to look at the exceptions at the time and analogize to illegal immigrants. I can link a fairly good argument as to why that analogy isn’t crazy.

                                Me, I still think it’s a hard argument to win, but it’s not crazy.

                                As for conservative justices, they’ll either remain principled or play by prog rules. And if they rule like a prog the Progs will scream bloody murder. Ironic.
                                Dan Patrick: What was your reaction to [Urban Meyer being hired]?
                                Brady Hoke: You know.....not....good.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X