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.
Just to make this clear, you did listen to Trump in the Primary and all, right?
You understand that he has made 100's of such statements - right out of 8th grade (if that) and continues to do so to this very day???
I'm with you. He set a bad tone and never once apologized for it or changed his ways. He's the leader and sets the tone. Using Trumps own world-view, why wouldn't others "fight back" in the same way he does?
I think future Presidents won't do this. Or at least I hope they don't.
"Just to make this clear, you did listen to Trump in the Primary and all, right?"
Trump IS from NY City, that SHOULD explain a lot, unless you have NO experience with people from NY City
Even with that he IS A COUNTER PUNCHER.
I don't recall 1 time Trump started the name calling.
"right out of 8th grade" can be applied to MANY dems AND LSM ALSO.
I don 't recall you EVER complain about a SINGLE one of them. Why?
"I think future Presidents won't do this. Or at least I hope they don't"
Many of us are GLAD to see a repub FINALLY fight back and NOT allow to have challenges and misinformation about them go un challenged.
The FIRST day of his presidency, some dems were calling for his impeachment.
The problem I see is many on the left can dish it out but, CAN'T TAKE IT.
Do you want us to bring up ALL of the things that the left has said about Reagan, his wife, John Tower, "Where do I go to get my reputation back", Clarence Thomas, W. Bush, Sarah Palin, etc., all the way to now?
Can you with a straight face claim the dems we above board and acted like adults with the Kavanaugh hearings?
So save us the "sanctimonious" care now.
Last edited by Quick Enough; 01-10-2019 at 06:01 AM..
But trump promised Mexico would pay for the wall.....Could this be another of Trumps lies?
"Could this be another of Trumps lies?"
First most things CLAIMED to be 'lies' are NOT. Just as the left used to point out "the 10 lies Rush made" proved to be a lie in itself.
Second, Mexico IS starting to "pay for the wall" through the new trade agreement with them.
So, wait.....other important national policies (slavery, women's suffrage, voting rights, civil rights, etc.) have taken HUNDREDS of years to slowly work their way through the courts, government and society....
BUT, you think they need to do something soon and "once and for all"?
That's not a real world opinion. It is simply NOT the way our government and system works. Government moves slowly for very good reason.
I hope you are not counting on the end of birthright citizenship...because it's not going to happen.
However, I think reasonable people (liberals like myself and many others) would agree that it needs to be better defined. The idea that RUSSIANS are paying to stay in Trump properties in Florida while they drop their babies is outrageous. This is a perfect formula for Putin inserting his people direct into the heart of our society and country.
Countries under heavy sanctions should have all such "rights" taken from them.
"I hope you are not counting on the end of birthright citizenship...because it's not going to happen."
And you record on predictions is what?
I think you fail to recognize now that Trump is REPLACING a LOT of dem appointed judges with judges of his own, I believe, see I stated an opinion NOT a matter fact as you did, that NOW people WILL be filing to the courts to look at the amendment and how it has been used and these new judge WILL look at the Amendment, who WROTE and what they ACTUALLY said about the amendment and what is was for.
You DO know what the authors of the amendment SAID about it, don't you.
So you think that doing 1/2 of the wall within 15 years is going to allow them to focus? Given normal delays, courts and changes in politics it could be many decades before even 500 or 700 miles are built. You really think the other 1,000 miles and immigration by boats, planes, trains, cars, trucks, bikes, walking (border crossings), tunnels and ladders aren't going to continue to happen?
At many times in my life I've been a dreamer but even I never thought things like this could be done with a wave of the hand or for a few billion dollars.
WOW! We can be the FIST country to put a man on the moon, defeat Germany TWICE and the second time also fought Japan who had decimated our Navy in the Pacific and WON, build the Panama Canal, the Hoover dam, etc, yet somehow aren't able to build a wall.
I suggest you look into the Seabees and see what they BUILT during WW!! and the conditions they had to deal with.
I hope you are not counting on the end of birthright citizenship...because it's not going to happen.
And you record on predictions is what?
I think you fail to recognize now that Trump is REPLACING a LOT of dem appointed judges with judges of his own, I believe, see I stated an opinion NOT a matter fact as you did, that NOW people WILL be filing to the courts to look at the amendment and how it has been used and these new judge WILL look at the Amendment, who WROTE and what they ACTUALLY said about the amendment and what is was for.
You DO know what the authors of the amendment SAID about it, don't you.
Just my OPINION.
They'll also look at the long list of historical and legal evidence. Here's a short excerpt:
1) The 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868) and it's original intent:
Senator Trumbull: "The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Children born in the U.S. to a foreign citizen parent whose country has jus sanguinis (right of blood) citizenship law were never supposed to be born U.S. citizens. They may choose to naturalize as a U.S. citizen at some point, but they were never intended to be U.S. citizens at birth. Only those ignorant of historical fact and the Congressional Record misinterpret the 14th Amendment to mean anything else.
2) Article XXV Section 1992 of the 1877 Revised Statutes, enacted 9 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, which clarified exactly who are U.S. citizens at birth per the Constitution:
"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States".
3) U.S. Secretaries of State determinations as to exactly who has birthright citizenship, after ratification of the 14th Amendment:
Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen (1881-1885) determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.
Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard (1885-1889) determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
4) In regards to illegal aliens' anchor babies... Their parents were NOT in the U.S. legally and therefore did NOT have a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. as did Wong Kim Ark's, a fact on which SCOTUS based their determination that WKA was born a U.S. citizen:
Wong Kim Ark ruling:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
The parents must have a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. WKA's parents were living in the U.S. legally. Illegal immigrants don't have a permanent domicile in the U.S. because they are in the country illegally. They aren't even supposed to be here at all. Furthermore, it is a federal offense to harbor an illegal alien in the U.S., or aid or abet in their harboring in the U.S. Illegal aliens' permanent domicile is in their home country; the country which would issue their passports were they to have one.
5) The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 which had to be enacted because even when Native Americans were born in the U.S., they were not U.S. citizens. Why? Because they were subject to a foreign power (their respective sovereign US Indian Nations). Note that the 1924 date of this Act is significantly later than both the 14th Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark ruling.
And, finally...
6) Read current US Nationality Law, specifically subsections (a) and (b). If everyone born in the US were actually automatically US citizens, subsection (b) would be redundant and would be neither included nor necessary:
I realize that's a lot of historical and current legal information to digest. But sadly, our public education system is such a joke that very few people are aware of the history surrounding the 14 Amendment and how subsequent births to parents of various nationalities were treated in the U.S. up until "political policy" (neither the Constitution nor federal nationality law) very recently changed.
They'll also look at the long list of historical and legal evidence. Here's a short excerpt:
1) The 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868) and it's original intent:
Senator Trumbull: "The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Children born in the U.S. to a foreign citizen parent whose country has jus sanguinis (right of blood) citizenship law were never supposed to be born U.S. citizens. They may choose to naturalize as a U.S. citizen at some point, but they were never intended to be U.S. citizens at birth. Only those ignorant of historical fact and the Congressional Record misinterpret the 14th Amendment to mean anything else.
2) Article XXV Section 1992 of the 1877 Revised Statutes, enacted 9 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, which clarified exactly who are U.S. citizens at birth per the Constitution:
"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States".
3) U.S. Secretaries of State determinations as to exactly who has birthright citizenship, after ratification of the 14th Amendment:
Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen (1881-1885) determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.
Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard (1885-1889) determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
4) In regards to illegal aliens' anchor babies... Their parents were NOT in the U.S. legally and therefore did NOT have a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. as did Wong Kim Ark's, a fact on which SCOTUS based their determination that WKA was born a U.S. citizen:
Wong Kim Ark ruling:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
The parents must have a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. WKA's parents were living in the U.S. legally. Illegal immigrants don't have a permanent domicile in the U.S. because they are in the country illegally. They aren't even supposed to be here at all. Furthermore, it is a federal offense to harbor an illegal alien in the U.S., or aid or abet in their harboring in the U.S. Illegal aliens' permanent domicile is in their home country; the country which would issue their passports were they to have one.
5) The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 which had to be enacted because even when Native Americans were born in the U.S., they were not U.S. citizens. Why? Because they were subject to a foreign power (their respective sovereign US Indian Nations). Note that the 1924 date of this Act is significantly later than both the 14th Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark ruling.
And, finally...
6) Read current US Nationality Law, specifically subsections (a) and (b). If everyone born in the US were actually automatically US citizens, subsection (b) would be redundant and would be neither included nor necessary:
I realize that's a lot of historical and current legal information to digest. But sadly, our public education system is such a joke that very few people are aware of the history surrounding the 14 Amendment and how subsequent births to parents of various nationalities were treated in the U.S. up until "political policy" (neither the Constitution nor federal nationality law) very recently changed.
Wrong, there are plenty of illegals entering our country that aren't looking for jobs or birthright citizenship for their kids, thus the wall. Certainly criminals, the drug runners or those from known terrorist countries aren't looking for any of the above. Better to deter as much illegal immigration at the border no matter what their reason for coming here.
However, I am just as strongly adamant about implementing e-verify, punishing the employers and ending this PC only policy of deeming the children of illegal aliens born on our soil as birthright citizens.
"there are plenty of illegals entering our country that aren't looking for jobs or birthright citizenship for their kids, thus the wall"
" Take a look at the crime statistics for just one state, Texas. A 2017 report by the Texas Department of Public Safety reveals that over the period from June 1, 2011 to February 28, 2017, the 215,000 criminal aliens who were booked into Texas jails were collectively charged with 566,000 offenses, including 1,167 homicides and 6,098 sexual assaults, with a total of 257,000 convictions.
By the way, Texas has less than half the criminal alien jail and prison population of California, which has over 100,000 criminal aliens occupying facilities supported by California taxpayers. (For 2009 incarceration numbers for each state, see Appendix III of the 2011 GAO report, here.)
I'm for ending birthright citizenship, and going to blood citizenship.
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.
