Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Of course to be honest and up front: I am a Rubio supporter but that being said, I somewhat agree with what you are saying except I think he did stand for something. His family story is awesome, he is a moderate conservative, has a good vision for dealing with illegals, that is one reason I like him. He will do fine if Grayson gets the nomination: Grayson is a joke, but I know nothing about his competition. I can say, 2 of our kids live in Florida, one is a die hard Republican, the other rarely votes but is voting this time for Hillary. They are both supporting Rubio. Yes, it will be interesting.
I think his problem, more than not standing for anything is immaturity; not just age, but attitude. At least, different from others, he admits his mistakes and apparently learned from them. He also gave an excellent speech when he dropped out of the race.
I think you make a good point about Rubio's relative lack of maturity - and given his story and background, I think he should have done better. Perhaps a problem he had was that he didn't pay as much attention to his constituents as he should....
He'll probably do well against Grayson but less well if it's Murphy (and I give Murphy a bit of an edge to get the Democratic nomination because Grayson is a bit of a loose cannon). Rubio does have name recognition but he'll need to explain why he changed his mind to run for reelection - and I'm at a loss to figure out how he can do that...
No matter how many times you post this, at this moment anyone born in the US is considered a US citizen. Talk to us when the laws get changed. In the meantime, this is nothing more than infowars material.
There is no law or Supreme Court decision that says that anchor babies are citizens. So there is no law to change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kat in aiken
Clearly, there are lots of people both inside and outside of the government who see the 14th amendment differently from you, or there would be no issue over "anchor babies".
You keep repeating the same thing, and posting the same link... why don't you tell us what we have so wrong about our understanding of the term "jurisdiction"?
"Subject to the jurisdiction of" means "subject to the jurisdiction of a specific national government."
Foreigners are subject to the jurisdiction of the countries from which they come. They are citizens of those countries and they can appeal to them for help if they get into difficulties with U.S. authorities, just as Americans who get into trouble abroad can appeal to U.S. embassies and consulates.
In other words, foreigners who are in the U.S. are subject to U.S. law, but not to U.S. jurisdiction.
As was made clear when the 14th amendment was passed, children born in the U.S. to diplomats from foreign nations are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. They -- like their parents -- are subject to the jurisdiction of the foreign nations from which their parents come. Thus, such children do not acquire birthright citizenship.
There is no reason why children born in this country to illegal aliens would be treated any differently than children born in this country to foreign diplomats. Neither they nor their parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., they are only subject to U.S. law while they are in this country. Thus, such children do not acquire birthright citizenship.
The Supreme Court has never found otherwise.
The mere fact that anchor babies are wrongly treated as though they are citizens is irrelevant as far as the Constitution and the law are concerned.
There is no law or Supreme Court decision that says that anchor babies are citizens. So there is no law to change.
"Subject to the jurisdiction of" means "subject to the jurisdiction of a specific national government."
Foreigners are subject to the jurisdiction of the countries from which they come. They are citizens of those countries and they can appeal to them for help if they get into difficulties with U.S. authorities, just as Americans who get into trouble abroad can appeal to U.S. embassies and consulates.
In other words, foreigners who are in the U.S. are subject to U.S. law, but not to U.S. jurisdiction.
As was made clear when the 14th amendment was passed, children born in the U.S. to diplomats from foreign nations are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. They -- like their parents -- are subject to the jurisdiction of the foreign nations from which their parents come. Thus, such children do not acquire birthright citizenship.
There is no reason why children born in this country to illegal aliens would be treated any differently than children born in this country to foreign diplomats. Neither they nor their parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., they are only subject to U.S. law while they are in this country. Thus, such children do not acquire birthright citizenship.
The Supreme Court has never found otherwise.
The mere fact that anchor babies are wrongly treated as though they are citizens is irrelevant as far as the Constitution and the law are concerned.
Clinton may very well go with Congressman Xavier Becerra - guy will garner Hispanic votes, huge segment of the voting population. Heard him on Fox Sunday and he's pretty sharp. Not sure his position on things, but he's clearly a well-spoken individual and clearly a team player.
Clinton may very well go with Congressman Xavier Becerra - guy will garner Hispanic votes, huge segment of the voting population. Heard him on Fox Sunday and he's pretty sharp. Not sure his position on things, but he's clearly a well-spoken individual and clearly a team player.
I see, so identity politics will come into play with Hispanic voters? Who'd have thunk it?
There is no law or Supreme Court decision that says that anchor babies are citizens. So there is no law to change.
"Subject to the jurisdiction of" means "subject to the jurisdiction of a specific national government."
Foreigners are subject to the jurisdiction of the countries from which they come. They are citizens of those countries and they can appeal to them for help if they get into difficulties with U.S. authorities, just as Americans who get into trouble abroad can appeal to U.S. embassies and consulates.
In other words, foreigners who are in the U.S. are subject to U.S. law, but not to U.S. jurisdiction.
As was made clear when the 14th amendment was passed, children born in the U.S. to diplomats from foreign nations are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. They -- like their parents -- are subject to the jurisdiction of the foreign nations from which their parents come. Thus, such children do not acquire birthright citizenship.
There is no reason why children born in this country to illegal aliens would be treated any differently than children born in this country to foreign diplomats. Neither they nor their parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., they are only subject to U.S. law while they are in this country. Thus, such children do not acquire birthright citizenship.
The Supreme Court has never found otherwise.
The mere fact that anchor babies are wrongly treated as though they are citizens is irrelevant as far as the Constitution and the law are concerned.
Yet, there have been and still are ample opportunities to have made a challenging case based on the 'anchor baby' thing... and nobody has done it. Wonder why? So, until there is one, and it goes to the Supreme Court for a ruling - guess what, you can feel like it isn't right, but you can't prove it isn't right.
Yet, there have been and still are ample opportunities to have made a challenging case based on the 'anchor baby' thing... and nobody has done it. Wonder why? So, until there is one, and it goes to the Supreme Court for a ruling - guess what, you can feel like it isn't right, but you can't prove it isn't right.
The Republicans have tried but the Democrats have resisted. We've already proven that the offspring of illegal aliens are not really citizens according to the wording of the 14th Amendment but you and other liberals refuse to get it.
The Republicans have tried but the Democrats have resisted. We've already proven that the offspring of illegal aliens are not really citizens according to the wording of the 14th Amendment but you and other liberals refuse to get it.
You haven't proven anything other than your opinion. Y'all already said it hasn't been decided on by the Supreme court. Since the Supreme Court needs to have a court case to look at, somebody needs to bring one. The interpretation of it rests with the SC, not politicians. Why don't y'all go ahead and start one, since you are utterly convinced that you are right? We'll wait.
You haven't proven anything other than your opinion. Y'all already said it hasn't been decided on by the Supreme court. Since the Supreme Court needs to have a court case to look at, somebody needs to bring one. The interpretation of it rests with the SC, not politicians. Why don't y'all go ahead and start one, since you are utterly convinced that you are right? We'll wait.
Only the clueless would think that the written words in the Constitution are opinions. I'm not a politician. It's up to them to address this issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
