All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

[Matthew]

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

 you're just going to.. ignore everything else

It was all non-sequetur and irrelevant.

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Matthew said:

It was all non-sequetur and irrelevant.

Well that's the kind of lie a person who knows they're wrong would tell to hide the fact they can't cope    Well done   

[Matthew]

8 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Well that's the kind of lie

Well I challenge you to quote anything from that post of yours that was relevant to the topic, specific, and not just a repeat of claims already said.

[Deluge]

20 hours ago, Hodad said:

The undocumented are a net economic positive, but we'd be better off resolving the immigration pressure with comprehensive immigration reform. 

Unfortunately, Trump felt that having the issue was better for him than finding a solution for Americans and a bipartisan bill went up in smoke. 

Illegal aliens are never a net economic positive. The best way to go is to get Americans doing American work again. Anything outside of that is just a call to break US law. 

Get with the program or gtfo.  

[eyeball]

13 hours ago, Deluge said:

What in the f*ck are you crying about? lol

I'm laughing actually.

[impartialobserver]

going to be an interesting saga for sure. It takes more than an EO to override the constitution. Going to need an additional amendment most likely and that will not be easy. 

[Deluge]

29 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'm laughing actually.

Well that's because you're a wokejob. lol

But you're also a crybaby, so how about you be more specific? Are you crying because Trump removed pictures of former presidents from the Oval office? Are you trying to say (hopefully without crying) that previous presidents didn't do the same thing? 

Edited January 27 by Deluge

[eyeball]

6 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Well that's because you're a wokejob. lol

But you're also a crybaby, so how about you be more specific? Are you crying because Trump removed pictures of former presidents from the Oval office? Are you trying to say (hopefully without crying) that previous presidents didn't do the same thing? 

I'm laughing because they all try to impress the impressionable by rearranging history to reflect the present, and it works!

Biden changed things that Trump changed and Trump changed them back and on and on it goes...like new tattoos over old ones they just make a mess.

[Deluge]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'm laughing because they all try to impress the impressionable by rearranging history to reflect the present, and it works!

Biden changed things that Trump changed and Trump changed them back and on and on it goes...like new tattoos over old ones they just make a mess.

We know democrats reimagine history because they have a hard-on for it, but how is Trump reimagining things?

[eyeball]

7 minutes ago, Deluge said:

We know democrats reimagine history because they have a hard-on for it, but how is Trump reimagining things?

He said Hitler did some good things. And then there was his 1776 Commission to promote a patriotic education. Cancelled by Biden of course, but no doubt it'll be back again.

Now Trump is trumpeting the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 and his belief "that's when we had real politicians"....sorta like his musing about Nazi Generals who knew how to get things done.

 

[Deluge]

23 minutes ago, eyeball said:

1. He said Hitler did some good things.

2. And then there was his 1776 Commission to promote a patriotic education. Cancelled by Biden of course, but no doubt it'll be back again.

3. Now Trump is trumpeting the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 and his belief "that's when we had real politicians"....sorta like his musing about Nazi Generals who knew how to get things done.

1. John Kelly said that Trump said that, apparently, but he turned on Trump with immigration and that's a cardinal sin. I wouldn't trust that a$$hole as far as you can throw him. 

2 A good idea, of course. Only a woke piece of shit like Biden could be unpatriotic enough to kill a patriotic education. 

3. No, it's sorta like what he said: "that's when we had real politicians", and I agree 100%.  

 

Edited January 27 by Deluge

[eyeball]

41 minutes ago, Deluge said:

1. John Kelly said that Trump said that, apparently, but he turned on Trump with immigration and that's a cardinal sin. I wouldn't trust that a$$hole as far as you can throw him.

Of course you wouldn't and you'd say the same thing about the Atlantic and the witnesses who reported Trump's comments about Nazi generals.

46 minutes ago, Deluge said:

2 A good idea, of course. Only a woke piece of shit like Biden could be unpatriotic enough to kill a patriotic education.

🤣

46 minutes ago, Deluge said:

3. No, it's sorta like what he said: "that's when we had real politicians", and I agree 100%.

Your history indicates you'll agree 100% with what Trumps says no matter what it is. 

[Nationalist]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'm laughing because they all try to impress the impressionable by rearranging history to reflect the present, and it works!

Biden changed things that Trump changed and Trump changed them back and on and on it goes...like new tattoos over old ones they just make a mess.

Here's a tattoo you might not like but...

I would suggest a new immigration law that states something like, "Should any visitor to the USA (TN Visa worker, Vacationer, asylum seeker, etc) or anyone inside the USA and not properly documented as a citizen, produce a child within the borders of the USA, said child WILL NOT be automatically afforded US Citizenship."

[eyeball]

7 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I would suggest a new immigration law...

First you'll need an Amendment to cancel or replace the 14th Amendment.

As usual you never think shit thru.

[impartialobserver]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

First you'll need an Amendment to cancel or replace the 14th Amendment.

As usual you never think shit thru.

That is precisely what needs to happen. I have a hard time believing that 3/4 of states would ratify this. 

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, Matthew said:

Well I challenge you to quote anything from that post of yours that was relevant to the topic, specific, and not just a repeat of claims already said.

The whole post was relevant, it doesn't excuse you're running away with your tail between your legs like a beaten puppy. 

And this is becoming habit for you. You are challenged and cannot defend your position and you start behaving like a petulant child.

If you can't cope with a simple discussion without breaking down and crying like a baby then maybe you should stay off the internet

 

[Matthew]

27 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

The whole post was relevant, it doesn't excuse you're running away with your tail between your legs like a beaten puppy. 

And this is becoming habit for you. You are challenged and cannot defend your position and you start behaving like a petulant child.

If you can't cope with a simple discussion without breaking down and crying like a baby then maybe you should stay off the internet

 

Ah I see you couldn't do it. Sad.

[CdnFox]

38 minutes ago, Matthew said:

Ah I see you couldn't do it. Sad.

I literally did. The whole post is relevant.

Did the voices in your head tell you to say that ?  

Run along home and play with your Lego kid I don't want to get accused of bullying children

[Nationalist]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

First you'll need an Amendment to cancel or replace the 14th Amendment.

As usual you never think shit thru.

No. It's a clarification of "jurisdiction".

[eyeball]

29 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

No. It's a clarification of "jurisdiction".

It's called the United States of America.

Go find the Gulf of America on a map, it's just North of that.

[Nationalist]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

It's called the United States of America.

Go find the Gulf of America on a map, it's just North of that.

Dude...you are never gonna convince me that "anchor babies" are good in any way for the nation.

[CdnFox]

14 hours ago, eyeball said:

It's called the United States of America.

Go find the Gulf of America on a map, it's just North of that.

I don't think you understand what jurisdiction means when it comes to people

Also if that's your definition are you saying that somebody born in Hawaii wouldn't be a citizen? Or that somebody born On an American registered ship wouldn't be considered a citizen?

Soil doesn't actually mean soil, and jurisdiction isn't quite as clear as you think.

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Dude...you are never gonna convince me that "anchor babies" are good in any way for the nation.

I'm simply pointing out that before Trump can to do anything about them he'll have to change America's Constitution.

He's effectively saying their Constitution, or the parts he doesn't like, are no good for the nation.

Good luck convincing the 3/4 of America it'll take to change it.

[CdnFox]

15 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'm simply pointing out that before Trump can to do anything about them he'll have to change America's Constitution.

He's effectively saying their Constitution, or the parts he doesn't like, are no good for the nation.

Good luck convincing the 3/4 of America it'll take to change it.

But you're probably wrong. As I pointed out the earlier readings made an interesting comment to the effect that the amendment grants them citizenship and nothing was done to remove it in essence. In other words there's no barrier that says that such citizenship can't be instantly revoked under certain circumstances.

There are challenges with this but not insurmountable. In addition it has never been tested that people in the country illegally would count when we're talking about jurisdiction and it can be argued that they wouldn't be.

That doesn't mean he's guaranteed to win, but there are at least a few very strong cases that could go before the supreme court and have a good chance of winning without any amendments to the constitution

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

I don't think you understand what jurisdiction means when it comes to people

Your inability to understand things is your fault. I certainly didn't mean any of the things you listed.

Did you think to ask what Nationalist meant? He could've meant anything when he put punctuation marks around "jurisdiction".

In any case a constitution informs the law not the other way around. As such it puts a limit on what Trump can do in his jurisdiction.

7 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

But you're probably wrong.

While you're definitely wrong.