No sane country’ would allow anchor babies or reward illegals

[RDD_1210]

nobody is "ignoring" anything dullard; we are saying it is being misinterpreted

OH AND IF ANYBODY is showing hypocrisy here it is you left-wingers who always say the Constitution is a living breathing document that needs to change with the times. we arent saying change it; we are saying it was NEVER meant to be interpreted this way

It is a living breathing document, and I'm open to changing it. But nothing is being misinterpreted by anyone except by you and the rest of the in-breds.

 

[ogibillm]

Then change the Constitution...

Or just stop misinterpreting the Constitution.

Let's hear your expert interpretation of the 14th amendment sparky.

14th Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

"Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Notice the words "subject to the jurisdiction of". Mexican nationals do NOT fall under our jurisdiction. They do not fall under our tax laws or SS. ONLY criminal laws which is for anybody here. We have no jurisdiction on if they do or do not pay their taxes/fees or fines in Mexico.

so you admit that we have jurisdiction while also claiming that we don't have jurisdiction?

 

[RDD_1210]

Then change the Constitution...

Or just stop misinterpreting the Constitution.

Let's hear your expert interpretation of the 14th amendment sparky.

14th Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

"Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

SPARKY; the US had no formal immigration policy when that was written; so it cant have been meant to refer to immigrants. intent ....................sparky

And? How does that discount anything happening now?

Hint - it doesn't.

always amusing when a leftnut answers his own question. it discounts it because it was never the intended purpose of the law

haha, thats rich. Lets take your same talking point and apply it to the 2nd Amendment now. Woops!

 

[bedowin62]

nations that have repealed birthright citizenship in recent years

go tell them they are all RACIST or something.....................

• Australia (2007)

• New Zealand (2005)

• Ireland (2005)

• France (1993)

• India (1987)

• Malta (1989)

• UK (1983)

• Portugal (1981)

 

[bedowin62]

Or just stop misinterpreting the Constitution.

Let's hear your expert interpretation of the 14th amendment sparky.

14th Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

"Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

SPARKY; the US had no formal immigration policy when that was written; so it cant have been meant to refer to immigrants. intent ....................sparky

And? How does that discount anything happening now?

Hint - it doesn't.

always amusing when a leftnut answers his own question. it discounts it because it was never the intended purpose of the law

haha, thats rich. Lets take your same talking point and apply it to the 2nd Amendment now. Woops!

"WOOPS"

THAT AMENDMENT isnt being misinterpreted genius

try again

 

[bedowin62]

do you want all the gun owners to join their own militias dummy? would that make you happy and feel the amendment's intent is being satisfied genius?

 

[bedowin62]

DEVELOPED nations still granting birthright citizenship:

USA
CANADA

yes exactly two

libs are losers who lie to themselves

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Then change the Constitution...

Show us where it says illegal aliens have the right to come here and give birth.
I don't see those words anywhere in our Constitution.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Notice, it doesn't mention where mommy came from, or how she got here...

 

[bedowin62]

DEVELOPED NATIONS*
Birthright Citizenship
YES USA, CANADA
NO
Andorra
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Bermuda
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Faroe Islands
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Holy See
Hong Kong
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Malta
Monaco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
San Marino
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
United Kingdom

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Then change the Constitution...

Or just stop misinterpreting the Constitution.

Let's hear your expert interpretation of the 14th amendment sparky.

14th Amendment | Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

"Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

People who come here illegally aren't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Others who aren't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" included foreign diplomats and tourists.

 

[g5000]

Notice the words "subject to the jurisdiction of". Mexican nationals do NOT fall under our jurisdiction.

Then they are not illegal, retard.

 

[g5000]

People who come here illegally aren't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Then they aren't illegal, retard. And they can't be arrested for breaking our laws.

Now don't you feel stupid?

 

[g5000]

As soon as someone enters our country, they are under our jurisdiction. They can be arrested for breaking our laws.

The only people who are not under our jurisdiction are those who have been accredited by our government as being in the service of their home country and have been granted diplomatic immunity.

It's funny. No matter how many times you explain this to the retards, they STILL don't get it. Willfully stupid.

 

[Moonglow]

Then change the Constitution...

Show us where it says illegal aliens have the right to come here and give birth.
I don't see those words anywhere in our Constitution.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Notice, it doesn't mention where mommy came from, or how she got here...

From the statements of the nativist, the Founders were loony...

 

[bedowin62]

It is a living breathing document, and I'm open to changing it. But nothing is being misinterpreted by anyone except by you and the rest of the in-breds.[/QUOTE]



YAWN
when you dont have an argument call the other guy an "inbred" loser

oh and when you dont have an arguemtn just say it isnt so

of COURSE it is being misinterpreted; we had no immigration policy then

 

[Moonglow]

It is a living breathing document, and I'm open to changing it. But nothing is being misinterpreted by anyone except by you and the rest of the in-breds.

YAWN
when you dont have an argument call the other guy an "inbred" loser

oh and when you dont have an arguemtn just say it isnt so

of COURSE it is being misinterpreted; we had no immigration policy then

You do the same, hypocrite...

 

[bedowin62]

As soon as someone enters our country, they are under our jurisdiction. They can be arrested for breaking our laws.

The only people who are not under our jurisdiction are those who have been accredited by your government as being in the service of their home country and have been granted diplomatic immunity.

It's funny. No matter how many times you explain this to the retards, they STILL don't get it. Willfully stupid.

they can be arrested for breaking our laws loon?

you'd never know that nowadays would you loon?


i mean sanctuary cities and all.........???

 

[bedowin62]

It is a living breathing document, and I'm open to changing it. But nothing is being misinterpreted by anyone except by you and the rest of the in-breds.

YAWN
when you dont have an argument call the other guy an "inbred" loser

oh and when you dont have an arguemtn just say it isnt so

of COURSE it is being misinterpreted; we had no immigration policy then

You do the same, hypocrite...[/QUOTE]


again; we have no formal immigration poklicy when that was written leftard. what part dont you get?

 

[CowboyTed]

"there were immigrants and they were dealt with......................."

good one idiot. how?

Before that the British Empire parts of your immigration policy... But US had one form almost the first day.

18th century[edit]
The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787. Article I, section 8, clause 4 of the Constitution expressly gives the United States Congress the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.[1]

Pursuant to this power, Congress in 1790 passed the first naturalization law for the United States, the Naturalization Act of 1790. The law enabled those who had resided in the country for two years and had kept their current state of residence for a year to apply for citizenship. However it restricted naturalization to "free white persons" of "good moral character".

The Naturalization Act of 1795 increased the residency requirement to five years residence and added a requirement to give a three years notice of intention to apply for citizenship, and theNaturalization Act of 1798 further increased the residency requirement to 14 years and required five years notice of intent to apply for citizenship.

 

[bedowin62]

got tell some of your favorite "tolerant" socialist democracies they are all a bunch of right-wing racists for dong this leftardz:


The following are among the nations repealing Birthright Citizenship in recent years:

• Australia (2007)
• New Zealand (2005)
• Ireland (2005)
• France (1993)
• India (1987)
• Malta (1989)
• UK (1983)
• Portugal (1981)