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.
Correct. Way too many people coming across for baby-supporting purposes then ride the welfare train the rest of their lives.
I suppose you mean "one is too many," don't you? How many people who entered the US "ride the welfare train the rest of their lives?"
The scope of this discussion is not exclusive of the American-born child of foreign parents who entered the US legally. They are "anchor babies" too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverBulletZ06
3 of 5 kids on life support were Latin American kids who got flown over "then got sick" with chronic deadly illness' which would have been manifesting for months.
Is that a fact? That's terrible. Please cite the source of this information, would you? Thanks!
So why not just let anyone who wants to come in to come in? What's the point of having Customers and Border Protection at marine terminals and airports? What's the point of having the Border Patrol?
It's not true. Guess he does not read the papers or see the news of the tunnels and drugs and deaths ... Please let him go to the border and then he can report CBP playing cards smoking a cigar and letting all run in. but I will tell you this,,, there is no budget for DHS. They are on a continuing resolution or critical mission only... So they may hold back. There is no money for gas or tires etc.. Those are facts!
LOL obviously not. Honestly, I agree with you. But that's how the constitution is worded.
It actually is worded that way. In fact, it is easy to know what the Constitution says. It is only when people oppose the Constitution that they need to interpret it or start talking about a "living document." Also in point of fact, the liberal justices of the Supreme Court routinely and proudly cite foreign laws in order to come to their decisions. Were you aware of that? That is because they cannot find any laws that agree with them in America, so they turn to Europe or Asia. That's wholly unconstitutional, but that doesn't bother them at all.
Citing Wikipedia and bolding words that don't say what you claimed doesn't actually move me in any meaningful way. Try again.
They say something other than what I "claimed"? I don't recall claiming anything. I cited the relevant text and the existing legal opinions.
Does "all" mean something other than "all?"
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
Does "born" mean something other than "born?"
Does "in the United States" mean something other than "in the United States?"
Does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean something other than "subject to the jurisdiction thereof?"
Does "are citizens of the United States" mean something other than "citizens of the United States?"
They say something other than what I "claimed"? I don't recall claiming anything. I cited the relevant text and the existing legal opinions.
Does "all" mean something other than "all?"
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
Does "born" mean something other than "born?"
Does "in the United States" mean something other than "in the United States?"
Does "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean something other than "subject to the jurisdiction thereof?"
Does "are citizens of the United States" mean something other than "citizens of the United States?"
I just checked and you're still not citing the Constitution.
It actually is worded that way. In fact, it is easy to know what the Constitution says. It is only when people oppose the Constitution that they need to interpret it or start talking about a "living document." Also in point of fact, the liberal justices of the Supreme Court routinely and proudly cite foreign laws in order to come to their decisions. Were you aware of that? That is because they cannot find any laws that agree with them in America, so they turn to Europe or Asia. That's wholly unconstitutional, but that doesn't bother them at all.
Yeah, it is. That's why I'm having amusement with the OP. It's like how the left "discovered" abortion in the Constitution or transsexual bathrooms in the Constitution. Unfortunately, they don't exist in the Constitution, nor do anchor babies. Nor is there the right to affordable housing. Nor is there the right to marriage. Nor is there the right to water. I can continue.
It actually is worded that way. In fact, it is easy to know what the Constitution says. It is only when people oppose the Constitution that they need to interpret it or start talking about a "living document." Also in point of fact, the liberal justices of the Supreme Court routinely and proudly cite foreign laws in order to come to their decisions. Were you aware of that? That is because they cannot find any laws that agree with them in America, so they turn to Europe or Asia. That's wholly unconstitutional, but that doesn't bother them at all.
Nobody has used the term "living document" in this discussion, apart from you.
Nobody has expressed opposition to our Constitution in this discussion.
Are you seriously suggesting that the Justices who ruled on the numerous cases in the past 148 years are all "liberals" who turned to "Europe or Asia?"
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.
