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.
I think his youngest son is also an anchor for his Mom.
Even though I dont oppose that move. Next would to make the non citizens pay for school, that will drive out them en masse .
Non-citizens do pay for school.
Public schools are funded by local property taxes. Non-citizens are paying local property taxes either directly (as homeowners) or indirectly (as renters).
Incorrect. Title to Indian Lands is held in trust by the Federal Government. That's why the FBI has jurisdiction, and Native Americans have never been able to reject that. Indian lands are not individual foreign countries spread throughout the US. They're under US jurisdiction. As such, Indian Nations cannot, for example, print their own currency to be used as legal tender, etc., like Canada, an actual foreign country, can.
This idea of Indian reservations as sovereign is a joke. Indians had no concept of sovereignty. The white man duped them again. If they were actually soverign, why don't they have a seat at the UN or any other international organization? Why aren't they part of NAFTA or any other international trade pact?
Public schools are funded by local property taxes. Non-citizens are paying local property taxes either directly (as homeowners) or indirectly (as renters).
They pay something, but they are still a drain. Poor people tend to pay lower property taxes than rich people who live in more expensive homes.
The amount that poor people pay does not cover the cost of educating their children, which is subsidized by the property taxes the rich people pay.
We should have an obligation to pay for the education of poor people who actually belong here, but illegals have no right to be here. It is crazy that we are paying to educate their kids. Every illegal alien costs the town money. The more the town has, the higher the cost.
How is this a bad thing? Please explain in detail.
Try not to look up Colbert videos.
It's a bad thing because the President, who is sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, is taking an action to undermine that Constitution.
While his supporters feel that such an executive order may be the best thing for the United States, his detractors tend to think that undermining or disregarding the Constitution is not the best thing. The reason for this is that there are specific pathways to amend the Constitution, and an executive order is not one of them. President Trump is given a breathtakingly wide pass by his followers. He makes on a daily basis statements that are wrong and misleading, and when he's called out on these statements, he excuses himself. "I want to tell the truth." "That is what I was told." His followers wouldn't tolerate this kind of behavior from President Obama, but not only do they tolerate it, they seem to love it coming from President Trump. Worse, they criticize it when these false statements are pointed out, calling it "fake news" and labeling the media as an enemy. This is harmful to America in numerous ways. It makes Americans look like fools to the rest of the world. It degrades the political process. It creates and furthers division among Americans. The media is doing its job when it points out the misstatements and outright lies coming from this administration. THAT is their job. President Trump's umbrage when it happens should be directed not at the media, but at his own administration that evidently gives him misinformation, or fails to correct the misinformation he gets from whatever sources he favors.
People who are born here and grow up here ought to be able to live here without jumping through hoops with immigration and facing unnecessary steps to obtain authorization to study and work here.
People who are born here of two non citizens or illegal aliens should not grow up here. Non citizen and illegal aliens should should jump through hoops with immigration and take the steps to obtain authorization so their children wont be faced with problems later on. If the 14th Amendment is clarified/changed it wont be retroactive or apply to those who were born here and grown up as Americans.
They pay something, but they are still a drain. Poor people tend to pay lower property taxes than rich people who live in more expensive homes.
The amount that poor people pay does not cover the cost of educating their children, which is subsidized by the property taxes the rich people pay.
We should have an obligation to pay for the education of poor people who actually belong here, but illegals have no right to be here. It is crazy that we are paying to educate their kids. Every illegal alien costs the town money. The more the town has, the higher the cost.
This is getting off topic, but it is also not necessarily true.
It is a long-standing legal principle reinforced through dozens and dozens of US Supreme Court rulings, and literally thousands of State Supreme Court decisions, that no one can profit or benefit from the illegal acts of another.
So, children born to parents here illegally can neither profit nor benefit from the fact that their parents were here illegally, and they can be denied citizenship on that basis.
There is also an implied presumption in the 14th Amendment, that all persons receiving citizenship were lawfully situated in the US.
The whole purpose and intent of the 14th Amendment was to protect American Blacks, especially native-born American Blacks.
In the post-Civil War Era, American Blacks were denied the freedoms and privileges that White Americans enjoyed, and the 14th Amendment rectifies that.
It starts by saying natural-born or naturalized persons are both citizens of the United States, and of the State where they reside, then says no State may abridge the privileges or immunities of those citizens.
Then, in the event the first part is somehow interpreted in a differently twisted manner, the language shifts from "citizens" to "persons" and says no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process, and that no person shall be denied equal protection under the laws.
At that time, the US had no cogent immigration policy or any immigration laws. Much of the US was frontier land, the US government wanted it conquered and settled post-haste, and immigration was the best way to do that.
Even so, there is no evidence the authors of the 14th Amendment ever intended for it to be used to grant citizenship to those who are unlawfully situated or have no legal presence in the US, and those persons referenced in the 14th Amendment were lawfully situated and had a legal presence in the US.
If anyone can prove that was the intent of the 14th Amendment was otherwise, then let's hear it.
The problem is you want to prove a negative. You want to prove they had no intent to grant citizenship to those who had no legal presence in the United States, when at the time, this was not a concern. They weren't stupid. They understood the difference between jus soli and jus sanguinis. They were well aware that in the New World, jus soli was the guiding rule of citizenship, they were well aware that they were penning a jus soli rule. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.
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.
Trump plans to sign EO endiing birthright citizenship
