Social Trump to void birthright citizenship (part of the 14th amendment)

LOL, in my estimation, if you have to promote how super scary smart you are, you're probably not. It reeks of infantile insecurity.
The left here does it all the time. Must be why they keep falling for the same old football gag, over and over again.
iu
It's the sign of a really smart person, confident in their position, when they have to keep convincing themselves that they're smart. Everyone knows to take someone super seriously when half their argument "you're a big stupid face" on the kumite forum.
 
Last edited:
SCOTUS in 1898: "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 all children here born of resident aliens,

"Resident" would clearly exclude tourists.


and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes."

How does this work?
 
It has. And so called conservatives dont give a good God damn. I'm now convinced most trumpers here are actually just disinfo agents. I'm sorry I ever doubted it.

I was bamboozled, hoodwinked and lambasted. I feel like a total mark.
Wait until the next Dem POTUS comes around and watch the Great Turning of the American Mind. Trumpers will loath the same things they are applauding now and libs will champion things they rail against now. Notice how all the arguments for and against voiding birthright citizenship are similar to the gun control? The only thing I can't tell is if America is broken or if America is functioning exactly as it was intended to.
 
ORLY?

Please tell us what weaponry 18th century American militia members were legally barred from possessing. All ears.
I was talking about what the 2nd amendment allows NOW, not what armaments it allowed in the past. It was a response to the other poster who brought up the 2nd amendment when I said that the creators of the 14th could not have envisioned transatlantic air travel and the resultant abuse of the 14th.
 
"Resident" would clearly exclude tourists.




How does this work?

Illegal aliens are subject to US jurisdiction. The only recognized exceptions are for children of diplomats/foreign leaders born here, children of enemy combatants, and the antiquated Native American exception (which has since been eliminated by the passing of The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924).

Briefly, birthright citizenship goes deep back into medieval English common law. Most cited, that I've seen, is Calvin's Case. The controversy involved a person born in Scotland shortly after the English throne descended to Scottish King James VI. The case addressed whether persons born in Scotland, following the descent of the English crown to the King James VI, would be considered "subjects" in England.

In short, the case held that that all persons born within any territory held by the King of England were to enjoy the benefits of English law as subjects of the King. A person born within the King's dominion owed allegiance to the sovereign and in turn was entitled to the King's protection.

The case is so antiquated and steeped in intricate matters involving the formerly separate kingdoms of Scotland and England that it's a bitch to read. Here's the case if you're interested in hours of masochistic reading:

https://www.constitution.org/coke/Calvins_Case-7_Coke_Report_1a_77_ER_377.html

Here's a lengthy Yale Journal piece summarizing Calvin's Case and explaining its significance:

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1170&context=yjlh

There's absolutely no way a majority of the SCOTUS would rule against birthright citizenship. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch love themselves some English Common law. No way they contort themselves into ruling against it.
 
I was talking about what the 2nd amendment allows NOW, not what armaments it allowed in the past.

You're just talking about what judges have ruled. There are plenty of 2A proponents who believe these rulings are themselves violations of the amendment's intent.
 
The reason places like LA and San Francisco have sizable homeless populations despite having untold billions in tech money is because of an extreme lack of shelter for the homeless.
They're not supposed to have shelter. They're homeless.
 
You're just talking about what judges have ruled. There are plenty of 2A proponents who believe these rulings are themselves violations of the amendment's intent.
I was talking about how the 2nd does not give a private citizen the right to field all the same armaments the military has. If someone said that since the 2nd allows people the right to bear arms, why shouldn't they be allowed to have mortars and stingers, critics will contend that the founding fathers could never have foreseen such weapons and consequently the threat to the public. So a similar argument can be made that when the creators of the 14th wanted to free the slaves, they could never have foreseen transatlantic air travel and consequently the abuse of the 14th.
 
It's the sign of a really smart person, confident in their position, when they have to keep convincing themselves that they're smart. Everyone knows to take someone super seriously when half their argument "you're a big stupid face" on the kumite forum.

@High Plains Shifter So you're just gonna double down on your hypocrisy and ignore my reply to your surprisingly astute comment? Lol figures.
 
Sick burn, bro. Tell me more about the KKK and your fictional farm families.
Well, that's not a sick burn. It's lame, like everything you try to do here. You're a joke.

There's no way you're this stupid, so I can only assume you're just intentionally dishonest. Everyone is aware of how population growth works, and everyone except you apparently is also aware that there are more illegals in the country right now than there were total hispanics in the 80s, so your "it's all birth rates" shit is just moronic. Since you're such a whiz at 7th grade math, maybe you could try to work out how a population of 14,000,000 can get to over 60,000,000 in about 30 years with birth rates of 2006.5/1,000 women.
I'm not going to grant you any benefit of the doubt, based on what I've seen so far. I don't think you're really smart enough to be intellectually dishonest. In fact, I think you're a rather uncommon sort of idiot, so at least you're special.

If you think that level of growth and the fact that non-white persons will be a majority sometime during 2040-2050 is solely because of illegal immigration and not primarily because of birth rates and an aging caucasian population, then maybe you should be banned from Walmarts and have to cash your food stamps somewhere else.

I can post real, actual data like this all day long. I could also post about inflection points and exponential growth curves, but we both know that you don't actually know shit about math, or science, or English, so that's pretty much guaranteed to be a waste of my time.

FT_16.06.23_censusMajorityMinority_trend.jpg


FT_16.06.23_censusMajorityMinority_ageGroups.jpg


FT_19.07.11_GenerationsByRace_1.png



I suggest you reconcile with your dad, since that's obviously why you're such an angry person, educate yourself, and stop rage posting on the karate forum about shit you don't understand or are in straight denial of. You should stick to 6th grade math because the "7th grade math" you keep talking about is clearly too tough for you.
"stop rage posting on the karate forum about shit you don't understand or are in straight denial of" = ha ha ha, that is so precious. You and some of your fellow Forever Trump idiots lack self awareness or anything that resembles a clue. It's like you think a Kid Rock concert is the peak of human achievement. I think it's a miracle that you even made it out here to a karate forum.
 
LOL, in my estimation, if you have to promote how super scary smart you are, you're probably not. It reeks of infantile insecurity.
It doesn't take that much to make you and nostradumbass look like morons. You guys do most of the hard work yourselves.

quote]
 
Birthright tourism , for anyone not from Mexico and Central America, is a scheme that caters to wealthy individuals. To get an American visit visa, a Chinese or Indian or MidEasterner has to convince the US embassy they are not an overstaying risk. This means having a good job in their country , family, affluence etc..

There is no way the people who wrote the 14th amendment thought it was ok for affluent people from across the oceans to come here and immediately confer citizenship for their offspring. This law also mocks the people who apply for a green card and wait in line for many years. When these people from the Old World give birth here and return home with the child, they are not contributing to the tax base, but their offspring is eligible to receive Financial Aid and many other benefits set aside for Americans, when they turn 18 and come here.
not nearly as offending as mexicans dropping babies left and right
 
https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...ration-looking-seriously-at-ending-birthright

President Trump on Wednesday said his administration is once again seriously considering an executive order to end birthright citizenship months after several lawmakers cast doubt on his ability to take such action.

"We're looking at that very seriously," Trump told reporters as he left the White House for Kentucky. "Birthright citizenship, where you have a baby on our land — walk over the border, have a baby, congratulations, the baby's now a U.S. citizen."

-

The 14th amendment is being abused ; I hardly think the people who created it (to free slaves), intended it to apply to all the birth tourists in contemporary times.
Good
 
Illegal aliens are subject to US jurisdiction. The only recognized exceptions are for children of diplomats/foreign leaders born here, children of enemy combatants, and the antiquated Native American exception (which has since been eliminated by the passing of The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924).

Briefly, birthright citizenship goes deep back into medieval English common law. Most cited, that I've seen, is Calvin's Case. The controversy involved a person born in Scotland shortly after the English throne descended to Scottish King James VI. The case addressed whether persons born in Scotland, following the descent of the English crown to the King James VI, would be considered "subjects" in England.

In short, the case held that that all persons born within any territory held by the King of England were to enjoy the benefits of English law as subjects of the King. A person born within the King's dominion owed allegiance to the sovereign and in turn was entitled to the King's protection.

The case is so antiquated and steeped in intricate matters involving the formerly separate kingdoms of Scotland and England that it's a bitch to read. Here's the case if you're interested in hours of masochistic reading:

https://www.constitution.org/coke/Calvins_Case-7_Coke_Report_1a_77_ER_377.html

Here's a lengthy Yale Journal piece summarizing Calvin's Case and explaining its significance:

https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1170&context=yjlh

There's absolutely no way a majority of the SCOTUS would rule against birthright citizenship. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch love themselves some English Common law. No way they contort themselves into ruling against it.

You said it applied to children of alien residents. Tourists aren't residents.
 
At least he is being consistent with the racist losing confederates. They opposed this also.
 
Back
Top