[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Breaking News - kurtster - Mar 28, 2024 - 9:31pm
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Mar 28, 2024 - 9:27pm
 
Derplahoma! - Red_Dragon - Mar 28, 2024 - 5:11pm
 
Wordle - daily game - n4ku - Mar 28, 2024 - 5:08pm
 
NYTimes Connections - n4ku - Mar 28, 2024 - 5:03pm
 
Uploading Music - macadavy - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:18pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - zevon - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:17pm
 
Oldest Rock song on RP - johkir - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:07pm
 
USA! USA! USA! - R_P - Mar 28, 2024 - 3:28pm
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 3:10pm
 
Ukraine - R_P - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:41pm
 
Orbiting Earth - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:19pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:17pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:13pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - oldviolin - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:06pm
 
Israel - R_P - Mar 28, 2024 - 2:03pm
 
Photos you have taken of your walks or hikes. - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:21pm
 
Irony 101 - MrDill - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:21pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - MrDill - Mar 28, 2024 - 12:15pm
 
RP automation with iOS Shortcuts App - pradler4kant - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:57am
 
The Obituary Page - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:31am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - VV - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:27am
 
March 2024 Photo Theme - Many - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 28, 2024 - 11:07am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - Beaker - Mar 28, 2024 - 9:30am
 
NY Times Strands - geoff_morphini - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:37am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - pilgrim - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:19am
 
Business as Usual - black321 - Mar 28, 2024 - 8:09am
 
Trump - rgio - Mar 28, 2024 - 7:29am
 
Outstanding Covers - thisbody - Mar 28, 2024 - 5:51am
 
Today in History - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 28, 2024 - 4:28am
 
Little known information...maybe even facts - haresfur - Mar 27, 2024 - 6:21pm
 
RightWingNutZ - R_P - Mar 27, 2024 - 3:48pm
 
Please Don't Post Here - Red_Dragon - Mar 27, 2024 - 11:02am
 
Motivational Office Cliches... - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 26, 2024 - 10:20pm
 
(Big) Media Watch - Red_Dragon - Mar 26, 2024 - 6:18pm
 
Solar / Wind / Geothermal / Efficiency Energy - islander - Mar 26, 2024 - 8:00am
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - Beez - Mar 26, 2024 - 7:24am
 
Food - Steely_D - Mar 26, 2024 - 1:41am
 
Frequent drop outs (The Netherlands) - kingen - Mar 25, 2024 - 2:43pm
 
China - R_P - Mar 25, 2024 - 11:59am
 
Musky Mythology - R_P - Mar 25, 2024 - 11:20am
 
Play history seems to indicate that I"m streaming 24/7, b... - jarro - Mar 25, 2024 - 10:44am
 
April 8th Partial Solar Eclipse - Coaxial - Mar 24, 2024 - 6:22pm
 
New Music - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 24, 2024 - 5:07pm
 
Dental Floss Tycoons, and other Montana Myths, Facts, and... - Red_Dragon - Mar 24, 2024 - 12:32pm
 
Basketball - oldviolin - Mar 23, 2024 - 2:50pm
 
What Makes You Laugh? - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 23, 2024 - 1:54pm
 
Joe Biden - kurtster - Mar 23, 2024 - 11:17am
 
Technical Streaming Note for Nerdy RP DIYers - sjagminas1 - Mar 23, 2024 - 10:16am
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - Proclivities - Mar 23, 2024 - 8:56am
 
Other Medical Stuff - Antigone - Mar 22, 2024 - 3:06pm
 
Country Up The Bumpkin - oldviolin - Mar 22, 2024 - 11:06am
 
Pernicious Pious Proclivities Particularized Prodigiously - Red_Dragon - Mar 22, 2024 - 9:17am
 
Memorials - Remembering Our Loved Ones - Bill_J - Mar 21, 2024 - 8:54pm
 
Can you afford to retire? - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 21, 2024 - 2:15pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 21, 2024 - 11:10am
 
What Did You See Today? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Mar 20, 2024 - 5:13pm
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - ScottFromWyoming - Mar 20, 2024 - 4:31pm
 
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see - Antigone - Mar 20, 2024 - 3:10pm
 
Russia - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Mar 20, 2024 - 11:44am
 
2024 Elections! - Lazy8 - Mar 20, 2024 - 7:26am
 
Economix - R_P - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:36pm
 
Name My Band - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 19, 2024 - 10:53am
 
Delicacies: a..k.a.. the Gross Food forum - DaveInSaoMiguel - Mar 19, 2024 - 10:12am
 
New Forum Member on "What Makes RP Great" - miamizsun - Mar 19, 2024 - 4:38am
 
Cache stopped working on old Android Phone - Eisenwindel - Mar 19, 2024 - 1:50am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - Bill_J - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:23pm
 
Damn Dinosaurs! - oldviolin - Mar 18, 2024 - 8:16pm
 
One Partying State - Wyoming News - geoff_morphini - Mar 18, 2024 - 3:58pm
 
Great guitar faces - skyguy - Mar 18, 2024 - 3:33pm
 
Despots, dictators and war criminals - R_P - Mar 18, 2024 - 12:41pm
 
Media Matters - thisbody - Mar 18, 2024 - 10:03am
 
NASA & other news from space - miamizsun - Mar 18, 2024 - 4:13am
 
MEALTICKET - drinpt - Mar 17, 2024 - 4:13am
 
What makes you smile? - Steely_D - Mar 16, 2024 - 7:31pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Trump Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1061, 1062, 1063 ... 1129, 1130, 1131  Next
Post to this Topic
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar

Location: Dumbf*ckistan


Posted: Apr 23, 2016 - 4:05pm

 R_P wrote:

The Donald is immaculate. He doesn't make mistakes/gaffes/flubs because he's not merely human... {#Mrgreen}

 
Of course he is. We should all get our knees before his unfathomable brilliance. {#Notworthy}
Coaxial

Coaxial Avatar

Location: Comfortably numb in So Texas
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 23, 2016 - 2:42pm

 
aflanigan wrote:

Fixed your typos.

So you prefer the word of ignorant speculative bloggers (or Rush Limbaugh) over a posted message on the official website of the fire station that these Trump apologists are pointing to?

You need to learn the first law of holes.

 
I'm pretty sure he knows a lot about holes.




R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 23, 2016 - 2:39pm

 rotekz wrote:
She doesn't actually know and was speculating. Changes nothing.
 
The Donald is immaculate. He doesn't make mistakes/gaffes/flubs because he's not merely human... {#Mrgreen}
aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 23, 2016 - 2:34pm

 rotekz wrote:
"Because I was down there and I watched our police and our firemen down at 7/11

Snopes is wrong correct because it relies on an impossible easily confirmable statement from a person at the fire department an actual NY firefighter. They cannot possibly certainly would know how people refer to the station.
 


 
Fixed your typos.

So you prefer the word of ignorant speculative bloggers (or Rush Limbaugh) over a posted message on the official website of the fire station that these Trump apologists are pointing to?

You need to learn the first law of holes.


rotekz

rotekz Avatar



Posted: Apr 23, 2016 - 2:07pm

She doesn't actually know and was speculating. Changes nothing.
R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 23, 2016 - 1:50pm

 rotekz wrote:
"Because I was down there and I watched our police and our firemen down at 7/11

Snopes is wrong because it relies on an impossible statement from a person at the fire department. They cannot possibly know how ALL people refer to the station.

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4fise2/once_and_for_all_up_vote_if_you_know_what_711/

Trump spokeswoman on 7/11 remark: It was a 'slip of the tongue'
I guess she's 'in' on 'it' too...
rotekz

rotekz Avatar



Posted: Apr 23, 2016 - 12:54pm

"Because I was down there and I watched our police and our firemen down at 7/11

Snopes is wrong because it relies on an impossible statement from a person at the fire department. They cannot possibly know how ALL people refer to the station.

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4fise2/once_and_for_all_up_vote_if_you_know_what_711/

 

R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 23, 2016 - 12:39pm

 aflanigan wrote:
Another Trump myth bites the dust . . .
 
World class gymnastics...
aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 23, 2016 - 12:30pm

 rotekz wrote:
(Trump apologists scramble in vain to cover his latest BS claims)

 
Another Trump myth bites the dust . . .


rotekz

rotekz Avatar



Posted: Apr 23, 2016 - 12:08pm

 R_P wrote:
Really, really doesn't want to be President...
(He really happened to be at a 7-11 when it went down...)

 
So the media and everybody ripping Trump were wrong again. Nice try.

The real story behind Trump's '7/11' comment

Donald Trump is being roasted in the mainstream media for confusing the convenience store chain 7/11 with the 9/11 tragedy.

During a campaign rally earlier this week in Buffalo, Trump said, "Its very close to my heart because I was down there. And I watched our police and our firemen, down at 7-11, down at the World Trade Center, right after it came down."

Trump's comment wasn't a slip of the tongue. Nor was he referring to the convenience store chain.

Trump was referring to a New York fire station... Engine 7, Ladder 1, Battalion 1.

Hat tip to Nels, one of my listeners, who pointed this out to me:

"As a former New Yorker, I immediately knew what Donald Trump was referencing. Firestation #711 / Firemen's Legion #711 (Engine 7, Ladder 1, Battalion 1) were the very first responders to the 9/11 attacks. There was even a film made about them that won a Peabody and Emmy, called 9/11. How quickly our heroes are forgotten.  Also, the funniest thing is if you assume he mean 9/11, "down on 9/11" makes zero sense!"

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 23, 2016 - 11:01am

 kurtster wrote:

A differing opinion on United States v. Wong Kim Ark as it applies to our discussion ...

Myths can be difficult to dispose of, and birthright citizenship to aliens is no exception. Pro immigration advocates will refer to the Supreme Court ruling U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark as a desperate attempt to keep the fable alive. The problem with relying on Wong Kim Ark is that it draws zero support from the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, the ruling had nothing to with the Fourteenth Amendment at all, but everything to do with English Common Law, something the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause had no connection because it was a virtue of "national law."

There is other significant problems with the Wong Kim Ark ruling other than having no basis in Fourteenth Amendment text, intent and history that will never hold up under review — and that is how will any court with a straight face attempt to reconcile the civil rights bill of 1870. (1866 See below).  Remember that civil rights bill declared those children born to parents subject to a foreign power cannot be declared United States citizens.

You cannot simply revise he Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause to mean yes, it really was the intent of the Congress to grant citizenship to alien children born on US soil when the same Congress enacted law afterwards that did just the reverse. Try and explain why Congress would pass a Constitutional Amendment that grants citizenship to ANYONE born in the US and then turn around and pass a law that would deny automatic citizenship to aliens? Because you cannot, only leads us back to the to the exact construction of the clause for which it was intended and written to mean.

(The Wong Kim Ark ruling is so badly flawed and irrelevant probably lead to the US Supreme Court in 1982 to say they "had never confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens."  I cannot find support for this statement.)

By far the most relevant Supreme Court ruling on the subject to date, and indeed, fully supported by the Fourteenth Amendment itself came in Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884), where the court held that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence.

 From the court ...

Page 112 U. S. 102

to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.


 

1866 Enforcement Act

Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

......

I believe that the language regarding the meaning of jurisdiction is quite clear.  And the arguments and explanations presented very sound.
 
You believe it, but you're wrong—at least as far as the courts are concerned.

There would be no Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform if the courts had ruled differently. They are trying to overturn United States v. Wong Kim Ark, not reinterpret it. The ruling says exactly the opposite of their position, and it states it very clearly.

The precedent they cite for their case (Elk v. Wilkins) was in 1884, 14 years before United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The court was doubtless aware of that precedent and cast it aside, as it pertained to an entirely different set of circumstances: John Elk was a Winnebago Indian suing a Registrar of Voters in Omaha for the right to vote. Indians were excluded from citizenship in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, and the allegiance claimed in this case was to the Winnebago tribe.

This entire doctrine was discarded in 1924 in the Indian Citizenship Act, but it has nothing to do with United States v. Wong Kim Ark or birthright citizenship (of anyone but Native Americans anyway).

The quoted text (allegedly from a 1982 decision) does not appear in any supreme court ruling. You can search for yourself here.

It's amusing that every precedent Trump supporters drag out in defense of a clearly indefensible position are from execrable racist actions of the past.

Own it.

rotekz

rotekz Avatar



Posted: Apr 23, 2016 - 5:10am

Unite or Die: RNC’s Reince Priebus Defies ‘Never Trump’ Movement

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus wants Republicans to unite around the eventual nominee, disregarding the sentiment expressed by the coalition of conservatives who have vowed to never support Donald Trump.

“It is essential to victory in November that we all support our candidate,” Priebus said during his address to the RNC’s Spring Meeting in Florida this morning. “Politics is a team sport and we can’t win unless we rally around whoever becomes our nominee.”

While Priebus didn’t mention Trump by name, he referred to candidates who “are going to say some things to attract attention,” and urged Republicans to get behind the eventual nominee.


ScottFromWyoming

ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 23, 2016 - 12:45am

 kurtster wrote:


 
Interesting that a Trump supporter would be arguing Ted Cruz' case for him.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 9:11pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
kurtster wrote:
How? Not seeing anything here that contradicts.

Again, the 1st has nothing to do with anyone seeking to enter the country who is not already here.  The 14th leaves it to Congress to determine how it applies by defining jurisdiction and its application.  The 14th does not absolutely guarantee citizenship to those born here.  That has been widely documented by the authors of the 14th regarding its purpose and intent.  Congress can determine that if it so chooses.  That includes anchor babies and those who participate in the birth tourism industry.

The first forbids entangling the government with religion or the free exercise thereof. That would include a religious test for citizenship or entry.

There are very few exceptions to birthright citizenship as defined in the 14th amendment, as settled by United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. You'd basically have to be the child of a foreign diplomat.

There is no such thing as an anchor baby. The whole idea is fake; parents of citizens have no special priority in immigration. And I'm sure this isn't the last time I'll have to refute this; it's a durable lie, evergreen among the anti-immigrant right, but a lie nonetheless.

 
A differing opinion on United States v. Wong Kim Ark as it applies to our discussion ...

Myths can be difficult to dispose of, and birthright citizenship to aliens is no exception. Pro immigration advocates will refer to the Supreme Court ruling U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark as a desperate attempt to keep the fable alive. The problem with relying on Wong Kim Ark is that it draws zero support from the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, the ruling had nothing to with the Fourteenth Amendment at all, but everything to do with English Common Law, something the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause had no connection because it was a virtue of "national law."

There is other significant problems with the Wong Kim Ark ruling other than having no basis in Fourteenth Amendment text, intent and history that will never hold up under review — and that is how will any court with a straight face attempt to reconcile the civil rights bill of 1870. (1866 See below).  Remember that civil rights bill declared those children born to parents subject to a foreign power cannot be declared United States citizens.

You cannot simply revise he Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause to mean yes, it really was the intent of the Congress to grant citizenship to alien children born on US soil when the same Congress enacted law afterwards that did just the reverse. Try and explain why Congress would pass a Constitutional Amendment that grants citizenship to ANYONE born in the US and then turn around and pass a law that would deny automatic citizenship to aliens? Because you cannot, only leads us back to the to the exact construction of the clause for which it was intended and written to mean.

(The Wong Kim Ark ruling is so badly flawed and irrelevant probably lead to the US Supreme Court in 1982 to say they "had never confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens."  I cannot find support for this statement.)

By far the most relevant Supreme Court ruling on the subject to date, and indeed, fully supported by the Fourteenth Amendment itself came in Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884), where the court held that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence.

 From the court ...

Page 112 U. S. 102

to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.


 

1866 Enforcement Act

Civil Rights Act of 1866, 14 Stat. 27 (1866).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States, to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.

......

I believe that the language regarding the meaning of jurisdiction is quite clear.  And the arguments and explanations presented very sound.


Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 8:27pm

kurtster wrote:
How? Not seeing anything here that contradicts.

Again, the 1st has nothing to do with anyone seeking to enter the country who is not already here.  The 14th leaves it to Congress to determine how it applies by defining jurisdiction and its application.  The 14th does not absolutely guarantee citizenship to those born here.  That has been widely documented by the authors of the 14th regarding its purpose and intent.  Congress can determine that if it so chooses.  That includes anchor babies and those who participate in the birth tourism industry.

The first forbids entangling the government with religion or the free exercise thereof. That would include a religious test for citizenship or entry.

There are very few exceptions to birthright citizenship as defined in the 14th amendment, as settled by United States v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898. You'd basically have to be the child of a foreign diplomat.

There is no such thing as an anchor baby. The whole idea is fake; parents of citizens have no special priority in immigration. And I'm sure this isn't the last time I'll have to refute this; it's a durable lie, evergreen among the anti-immigrant right, but a lie nonetheless.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 7:27pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
 kurtster wrote:
I do not believe that is correct.  Where did you find that ?

Congress sets the criteria IIRC.  There is no Constitutional provisions stating who can or cannot be denied consideration.  The 1st amendment only applies to those already here.  It does not extend past our borders.

The US constitution has force and effect only within our borders, but the rights protected by it apply to everyone—not just citizens, and not just legal aliens. There are no exceptions for citizenship in the constitution, and that is by design. The constitution is a document recognizing the rights of humans, not of citizens.

Congress has plenary power to set immigration criteria, but that power is not unlimited. The first and 14th amendments restrict what criteria they can apply.

Congress has passed laws restricting entry based on ethnicity (the Chinese Exclusion act of 1889) which the courts at the time refused to review. It has since been repealed (and—extraordinarily—apologized for by the congress) but it would doubtless fail to withstand a constitutional challenge today.

The president has the power* to suspend "the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens" for as long as s/he likes, for any reason, but all actions of the president and congress are subject to compliance with the constitution and judicial review.

*Note to Stephen Molynieux fans—this is statutory, not constitutional power.

 
Here's one statement regarding plenary power that disagrees with your assertion.

Again, the 1st has nothing to do with anyone seeking to enter the country who is not already here.  The 14th leaves it to Congress to determine how it applies by defining jurisdiction and its application.  The 14th does not absolutely guarantee citizenship to those born here.  That has been widely documented by the authors of the 14th regarding its purpose and intent.  Congress can determine that if it so chooses.  That includes anchor babies and those who participate in the birth tourism industry.

On the 14th ...

Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
.
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.




Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 6:11pm

 kurtster wrote:
I do not believe that is correct.  Where did you find that ?

Congress sets the criteria IIRC.  There is no Constitutional provisions stating who can or cannot be denied consideration.  The 1st amendment only applies to those already here.  It does not extend past our borders.

The US constitution has force and effect only within our borders, but the rights protected by it apply to everyone—not just citizens, and not just legal aliens. There are no exceptions for citizenship in the constitution, and that is by design. The constitution is a document recognizing the rights of humans, not of citizens.

Congress has plenary power to set immigration criteria, but that power is not unlimited. The first and 14th amendments restrict what criteria they can apply.

Congress has passed laws restricting entry based on ethnicity (the Chinese Exclusion act of 1889) which the courts at the time refused to review. It has since been repealed (and—extraordinarily—apologized for by the congress) but it would doubtless fail to withstand a constitutional challenge today.

The president has the power* to suspend "the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens" for as long as s/he likes, for any reason, but all actions of the president and congress are subject to compliance with the constitution and judicial review.

*Note to Stephen Molynieux fans—this is statutory, not constitutional power.
kurtster

kurtster Avatar

Location: where fear is not a virtue
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 5:25pm

 Lazy8 wrote:
 kurtster wrote:
Does anyone have a right to be admitted to this country ?  

Everyone has the right to be considered for entry, and that the criteria for entry have nothing to do with religion.

 
I do not believe that is correct.  Where did you find that ?

Congress sets the criteria IIRC.  There is no Constitutional provisions stating who can or cannot be denied consideration.  The 1st amendment only applies to those already here.  It does not extend past our borders.
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 5:23pm

Jennifer had no idea who set up the account, but this really was
the match Ashley Madison had found for her.




R_P

R_P Avatar

Gender: Male


Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 5:03pm

 kurtster wrote:
Does anyone have a right to be admitted to this country ? 
 
This establishment is currently closed. Please bear with us while we're working hard to make ourselves greater than ever. We're enormously sorry for any inconvenience. The Management.
Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1061, 1062, 1063 ... 1129, 1130, 1131  Next