IF the United States Supreme Court Rules Obama Is Ineligible To Be POTUS (deport, how much)

[plwhit]

IF the United States Supreme Court Rules Obama Is Ineligible To Be POTUS

I'll go out and have my first drink in 10 years

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by pghquest

All of those people had BOTH parents born here.. Why are you having so much difficulty with this?

OMFG....

I just realize that you don't even understand your own arguments. You don't realize that the fake "no dual citizen" theory and the fake "2 citizen parent" theory are 2 completely different arguments.

How is it that Birthers can chew on something for more than three years and still not get even the simple stuff right?



You guys are d@mned prodigies of nature.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by HistorianDude

This is a lie. There is no such phrase found anywhere in the 1964 Civil Rights act.

Here. Go check.

Wrong again, it was amended in 1992, 8 US Code Section 1

Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship

"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are declared to be citizens of the United States."

[Arus]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Civil Rights act wasnt passed until the 1960's which is what I quoted.. Try again

not only do you have a failure in reading comprehension, you have a failure to follow a thread:

here is what you stated, in a post:

Originally Posted by pghquest
Thats in your imagination because NO WHERE has that been determined to be true!!

I replied:

Originally Posted by Arus
Wrong. US V Wong Kim Ark.

to which you replied:

Which led up to the 14th amendment an the Civil Rights act which says

all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power,

which I replied:

Fail. US v Wong Kim Ark was ruled on 30 years AFTER the passage of the 14th Amendment.

The train of thought was on WONG KIM ARK, which addressed both Natural born citizenship AS WELL as subject to jurisdiction in and because of the 14th Amendment

No it doesnt. A court in California cant hear a case from Florida

Fail again. Subject to jurisdiction is relation to United States in the 14th Amendment. Wong Kim Ark, addressed this.

Wrong again.. deportation falls under the Immigration and Naturalization Act and we cant deport all illegal aliens.. Some exclusion are those who have been here 7 years + can apply for suspension of deportation even if they are illegal

Wrong. If illegal aliens on US soil aren't subject to jurisdiction, they couldn't be deported as they are not "subject to our jurisdiction" meaning they do not have to follow our laws.

Wong Kim Ark explained how subject to jurisdiction = be on US Soil.

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Wrong again, it was amended in 1992, 8 US Code Section 1

Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship

"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are declared to be citizens of the United States."

That quote is not found in the 1992 Amendment either. So, we've established now that you again have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

If you want to know what you actually are quoting, stop shooting wildly into the air and just ask. I'll be happy to help you out.

[Arus]

Originally Posted by pghquest

If your country club said BOH PARENTS.. then what can you do about it? Come on Arus.. you can answer.. we wont laugh.. I promise!!!

I answered it, its in the same post at this one claim:

Notice that Minor V Happersett didn't say BOTH parents must be citizens.

Trap. You. Fell. Right. In.

[Arus]

Originally Posted by pghquest

All of those people had BOTH parents born here.. Why are you having so much difficulty with this?

Then explain Spiro Agnew. Mother was born in the US, father an immigrant. Didn't naturalize till after Agnew was born.

[Randomstudent]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Wrong again, it was amended in 1992, 8 US Code Section 1

Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship

"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power are declared to be citizens of the United States."

Again this clause of the 14th amendment is interpreted in Wong Kim Ark to allow people born in the US, who are the children of foreign parents birthright citizenship. In Wong Kim Ark both the parents were Qing subjects and he still was deemed to be a citizen.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by Arus

not only do you have a failure in reading comprehension, you have a failure to follow a thread:

here is what you stated, in a post:

I replied:

to which you replied:

which I replied:

The train of thought was on WONG KIM ARK, which addressed both Natural born citizenship AS WELL as subject to jurisdiction in and because of the 14th Amendment

Fail again. Subject to jurisdiction is relation to United States in the 14th Amendment. Wong Kim Ark, addressed this.

What YOU SAID was US Soil.. You were wrong AGAIN

Originally Posted by Arus

Wrong. If illegal aliens on US soil aren't subject to jurisdiction, they couldn't be deported as they are not "subject to our jurisdiction" meaning they do not have to follow our laws.

Wong Kim Ark explained how subject to jurisdiction = be on US Soil.

Who the hell said they arent subject to our jurisdiction.. The question is ARE THEY A CITIZEN..

NO they arent..

Are you still researching what happens if your club says both parents have to be a member? I'm still waiting for your reply

[HistorianDude]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Who the hell said they arent subject to our jurisdiction.. The question is ARE THEY A CITIZEN..

The parents, no. The child, yes.