Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Exactly which means you are making them remove the children from the country they were born in. So I ask again, what if someone passed through legislation which put your citizenship at risk?
Also there is a specific rule about applying a law to people who were not doing anything illegal before the law was passed. So even if a law were passed , you couldn't go apply it to any children who are already US citizens.
I am telling them to go the fuck home and take their kid with them. Why do you not get that? When Jose grows up and can look after himself, he can come home.
If you won't address that fact, I'm tired of foolin' with ya.
You are both missing one option. They may leave the anchor baby here. It is the choice of the parent to leave the child or take it with them. No one is yanking the citizenship of the anchor baby, nor saying that it many not come back, but the parents must go. No one is forcing citizens to go.
If illegals KNOW that having an anchor baby is NOT a guarantee of staying in this country my guess is they would have less anchor babies. If illegal mothers knew they were going to be instantly deported upon birth of a child (choice of leaving the baby in this country or taking it with them back home) my guess they would be having less anchor babies.
No one is forcing anyone to do anything. It was the illegals choice to have a child. It will be the illegals choice of what to do with that child, no force required. Take it with her or leave it behind is the mothers choice, but she must go either way. And if you can catch the father he goes too!
Holy Jesus are people in this thread actually suggesting we have to "bail Mexico out" before we lock down our borders?
Fuck Mexico, I haven't fought in two wars and risked my life daily in order to pay taxes to support Mexico. If that were my goal, I would have joined the Mexican Army.
they said the opposite when it was the indians before that, meaning that the ruling you cite is unconstitutional per scotus' earlier rulingsThe issue is the stupidity of that solution.
A) Do you realize how much it would cost to round them all up, detain them, try them, and deport them?
More than the bullets to shoot them when they try top hop the fence in the first place...
They're not citizens.B) What do you propose to do with the ones who are US citizens due to being born here? Just say fuck you and your citizenship?
What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means
That IS a legitimate argument that could be made, except that it already has been ruled on
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
In fact this case applies DIRECTLY here because the SCOTUS ruled that NO group could be singled out and excluded from the protections of the 14th.
Under the jurisdiction basically means everyone born here except children of visiting dignitaries, in other words if the Saudi Ambassador's wife has a kid here, he is not a citizen, for example.
they said the opposite when it was the indians before that, meaning that the ruling you cite is unconstitutional per scotus' earlier rulings
this is not how that works, kid.silly me, here I thought things like 'precedent' and what the court already said the law meant were supposed to mean something and outweigh political maneuveringsthey said the opposite when it was the indians before that, meaning that the ruling you cite is unconstitutional per scotus' earlier rulings
How Can We Solve The Illegal Immigration Problem?
The US should buy Mexico and divide it into 7 States. Then we'll have 57 States.
Thanks for clarifying the Saudi shit. I know I was worried about that.
But may I repeat my question: What Meixcan is gonna fucking leave thier fucking kid here!?
Probably none which means you are FORCING parents to choose to take US CItizens out of the US. That's stupid and patently illegal.
I ask again, how would you feel if someone said dude you're no longer welcome in your country of birth?
I don't like to be rude. Truly.
Look at your question. Who's gonna ask that? Who's gonna answer?
If we we were talking about the country of birth, THERE WOULD BE NO FUCKING PROBLEM! ! ! !
and I will ask again, What if someone gave YOUR US citizen child those options. Ok Johnny you can go to Mexico with mommy or you can stay here and have a foster mom... Of course based on what I know of your parenting style, your child would actually be better off with a foster parent, but still I thought you didn't want the state forcing parenting decisions on people?
Holy Jesus are people in this thread actually suggesting we have to "bail Mexico out" before we lock down our borders?
Fuck Mexico, I haven't fought in two wars and risked my life daily in order to pay taxes to support Mexico. If that were my goal, I would have joined the Mexican Army.
silly me, here I thought things like 'precedent' and what the court already said the law meant were supposed to mean something and outweigh political maneuveringsthey said the opposite when it was the indians before that, meaning that the ruling you cite is unconstitutional per scotus' earlier rulings
So people here legally (dignitaries) can't drop their kids off, but criminals can?
That make a lot of sense...
Holy Jesus are people in this thread actually suggesting we have to "bail Mexico out" before we lock down our borders?
Fuck Mexico, I haven't fought in two wars and risked my life daily in order to pay taxes to support Mexico. If that were my goal, I would have joined the Mexican Army.
That is exactly what Madeline is suggesting.
As appealing as it is, dismissing the thought of aiding Mexico on the basis that is logically implies leaving the borders open is wrong and I did not suggest it. What I suggested instead was that we do BOTH.
As appealing as it is, dismissing the thought of aiding Mexico on the basis that is logically implies leaving the borders open is wrong and I did not suggest it. What I suggested instead was that we do BOTH.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was a supreme court case, buddy. nothing holds precedent over that save the constitution itself.
nothing about a precedent makes a decision unconstitutional, either. a higher court will have to strike it down under appeal, however, the supreme court has no such superior. for this reason, the supreme court has overturned its own precedents, most famously in brown v. board of education.
class is dismissed.
there is more to jurisdiction than criminal jurisdictionSo people here legally (dignitaries) can't drop their kids off, but criminals can?
That make a lot of sense...
Because it's about JURISDICTION. If an illegal get's arrested in this country the justice dep't aka the government has jurisdiction over them, not so with a foreign dignitary.
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark was a supreme court case, buddy. nothing holds precedent over that save the constitution itself.
Not even other SCOTUS rulings?
nothing about a precedent makes a decision unconstitutional, either. a higher court will have to strike it down under appeal, however, the supreme court has no such superior. for this reason, the supreme court has overturned its own precedents, most famously in brown v. board of education.
class is dismissed.
In other words, SCOUTS just makes it up as it goes along and is nothing more than a political tool that cares only about serving the ends of its members and doesn't give a damn about what the Constitution really says
