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.
Are you on the Supreme Court? If you're not, your opinion about what is and is not actually legal is worth exactly what we are paying for it, since the issue HAS reached the Supremes. Based on their decision, most legal scholars agree that birthright citizenship is, indeed, what was intended in the Constitution.
It can indeed be legislatively clarified, as long as it's in a way that the Supreme Court upholds. In the meantime, we have the precedent they set. Again, in Wong Kim Ark. Keep arguing it all you want, but you're wrong. Supremely wrong
LOL Court opinion swings as the majority does from party to party. You act as if these cases are set in stone and the formerly stated opinion is forever correct. They're not.
LOL Court opinion swings as the majority does from party to party. You act as if these cases are set in stone and the formerly stated opinion is forever correct. They're not.
It's worse than that, state courts as an example over-ruled the will of the people in California with Prop 187 to get rid of illegals, so these Left-Wingnut-jobs have cost taxpayers of this state an extra 2-6 billion in this state alone financing illegals
This is poor, amateur analysis. The native tribes were foreign nations, not part of the United States.
Incorrect. They were in the US, and subject to US criminal law and federal courts since 1885, but didn't have birthright citizenship until specifically granted an exception by a Legislative Act in 1924. Prior to that, they were born in the US, but were not birthright US citizens.
Info on this from the FBI:
Quote:
"In 1885, Congress passed the Major Crimes Act to address the resolution of cases in which a crime involving two Native American parties occurs in Indian country. This Act established federal jurisdiction over seven crimes committed in these instances. The original seven covered by the Act include murder, manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, arson, burglary, and larceny. Subsequent amendments to the Act have added seven more offenses: kidnapping, incest, assault with a dangerous weapon, assault resulting in serious bodily injury, assault with intent to commit rape, robbery, and felonious sexual molestation of a minor. Although the intent of the Act is to permit federal punishment of major crimes by Indians against other Native Americans, the Major Crimes Act applies even in offenses committed by Indians against individuals of another ethnicity."
As has been explained with both historical and legal facts, that's not true for the children of illegal aliens.
No one is changing that. There's a legal path to immigration.
Exactly! We need to shed that stupid label of "nation of immigrants" also. Our native born citizen population way outnumbers our immigrant one. Time to just be ourselves a "nation of U.S. citizens" and stop using the above as blackmail to create the notion that nation of immigrants also includes illegal aliens as it clearly doesn't.
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.
