Trump and "Anchor Babies"

[danielpalos]

Trump understands - as few do - that the current practice of granting citizenship to ANYONE born here is bullshit, and based on an intentional mis-reading of a couple words in the 14th Amendment, to wit..."All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

The underlined words were inserted to exclude children of ambassadors and such who were working in the U.S. at the time of birth. These babies were subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' home country and not the U.S., and they would not be granted automatic citizenship.

It was NEVER intended that these words would be used to citizen-ize babies born in the U.S. to mothers who were here illegally. The current interpretation is based on a FOOTNOTE in a USSC opinion - not a binding ruling or precedent by any means - and carried forward by nothing more than inertia.

It has been said that a Constitutional Amendment would be required to change this, or at least Legislation, but as Trump also knows this too is bullshit. It is merely an incorrect interpretation of text, and carries no weight at all.

When Trump issues his Executive Order (assuming he goes through with it), the first "wetback" to be born here to illegal parents will SUE the Federal Government for recognition of its citizenship status, and the case - it may be presumed - will end up at the Supreme Court. Hopefully, on an expedited basis.

Guess what? The Leftists who controlled the court when this abomination was begun are all dead and gone, and there is a new sheriff in town. Although Roberts has shown himself to be a bit wobbly, it is very likely that the Court, when presented with this question, will merely re-state the obvious, and hold that Trump's EO DOES NOTHING TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION, that it merely corrects an unfortunate misinterpretation that has prevailed for many decades.

The people who have already been deemed to be citizens will not be affected, but this stupid, disastrous, unique-in-all-the-world policy will be HISTORY.

All Hail the TRUMPSTER!

Birthright citizenship is an illegal immigration magnet.
It was never meant for the offspring of illegal aliens.
There are probably 2 Billion people who want to immigrate to America.
If we don't control our immigration it could destroy our country.
The Dirty Democrats do not care about America's future.
They just want more money and power.

right wingers are lousy capitalists, that is all; they prefer their socialism on a national basis to finding capital solutions to our problems.

 

[Skylar]

* In Due Time *

Again, more personal opinion fallaciously offered as caselaw. The Wong ruling NEVER finds that an illegal immigrant is a 'hostile agent'. Nor has any court. Nor does any of our laws.

The only thing fallacious is that there has not been a court challenge about it .

Issue is that the practice of awarding us citizenship to children of illegal migrants violates the civil liberties of citizens ; and , a class action lawsuit should be brought forward against government for its malfeasance .

So you admit that your inane babble about 'hostile agents' isn't the Wong ruling. It isn't the constitution. It isn't the caselaw. It isn't US law. It isn't the finding of any court. Ever.

Its just you making shit up.

Well that only took you three days to admit.

Oh, and FYI: The courts making no mention of whatever hapless pseudo-legal batshit you make up isn't 'malfeasance'. Its just you not having the slightest clue what you're talking about. And offering us your imagination as the law.

Illegal immigrants aren't a 'hostile occupation' of this land. Nor are they 'alien enemies'. Or 'hostile agents'. Nor has any court every found them to be. Nor are they classified as such by any of our laws.
Just obliterating your entire argument.

The contention about the clause " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " has not been obliterated , and it remains a valid premise that would require children born to unauthorized migrants ( those who do not subject themselves to us jurisdiction for approval as migrants ) be provided citizenship from the country of origin for that of the mother .

Your laughable interpretation 'subject to the jursidiction thereof' has been obliterated, as its predicated on illegal immigrants being a 'hostile agent' or 'alien enemies' or a 'hostile occupation'.

Something no us law nor court has ever found. Something you pulled sideways out of your ass.

And you making shit up doesn't magically change the meaning of 'in amity' in the Wong ruling. Nor does it have the slightest relevance to birthright citizenship.

You're really not very good at this.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Trump understands - as few do - that the current practice of granting citizenship to ANYONE born here is bullshit, and based on an intentional mis-reading of a couple words in the 14th Amendment, to wit..."All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

The underlined words were inserted to exclude children of ambassadors and such who were working in the U.S. at the time of birth. These babies were subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' home country and not the U.S., and they would not be granted automatic citizenship.

It was NEVER intended that these words would be used to citizen-ize babies born in the U.S. to mothers who were here illegally. The current interpretation is based on a FOOTNOTE in a USSC opinion - not a binding ruling or precedent by any means - and carried forward by nothing more than inertia.

It has been said that a Constitutional Amendment would be required to change this, or at least Legislation, but as Trump also knows this too is bullshit. It is merely an incorrect interpretation of text, and carries no weight at all.

When Trump issues his Executive Order (assuming he goes through with it), the first "wetback" to be born here to illegal parents will SUE the Federal Government for recognition of its citizenship status, and the case - it may be presumed - will end up at the Supreme Court. Hopefully, on an expedited basis.

Guess what? The Leftists who controlled the court when this abomination was begun are all dead and gone, and there is a new sheriff in town. Although Roberts has shown himself to be a bit wobbly, it is very likely that the Court, when presented with this question, will merely re-state the obvious, and hold that Trump's EO DOES NOTHING TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION, that it merely corrects an unfortunate misinterpretation that has prevailed for many decades.

The people who have already been deemed to be citizens will not be affected, but this stupid, disastrous, unique-in-all-the-world policy will be HISTORY.

All Hail the TRUMPSTER!

Birthright citizenship is an illegal immigration magnet.
It was never meant for the offspring of illegal aliens.
There are probably 2 Billion people who want to immigrate to America.
If we don't control our immigration it could destroy our country.
The Dirty Democrats do not care about America's future.
They just want more money and power.

right wingers are lousy capitalists, that is all; they prefer their socialism on a national basis to finding capital solutions to our problems.

LMAO. Tell me more about your plan to pay people $15 per hour to stay home and play Scrabble. You Leftist dork.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Sycophant Lying To Protect Criminal Elements "

* Illiterate At That *

So you admit that your inane babble about 'hostile agents' isn't the Wong ruling. It isn't the constitution. It isn't the caselaw. It isn't US law. It isn't the finding of any court. Ever.
Its just you making shit up. Well that only took you three days to admit. Oh, and FYI: The courts making no mention of whatever hapless pseudo-legal batshit you make up isn't 'malfeasance'. Its just you not having the slightest clue what you're talking about. And offering us your imagination as the law.

It is yourself " just making shit up " , as the only thing clearly evident is that there has not been a case ruling on whether children of a non legal migrant are entitled to citizenship , when subject to the contingency clause " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " .

Your badgering and lies are simply fear that is meant to divert a legitimate challenge for which the american people are entitled and ,whenever the responsibilities of public office are inappropriately carried out , that is malfeasance .

* Hypothetical Ethics *

Your laughable interpretation 'subject to the jursidiction thereof' has been obliterated, as its predicated on illegal immigrants being a 'hostile agent' or 'alien enemies' or a 'hostile occupation'. Something no us law nor court has ever found. Something you pulled sideways out of your ass. And you making shit up doesn't magically change the meaning of 'in amity' in the Wong ruling. Nor does it have the slightest relevance to birthright citizenship. You're really not very good at this.

And ' subject to the jurisdiction thereof " does not rely upon a standing of enmity , but if someone were to come onto your property without permission ( enter the country illegally ) and intentionally fall on your property ( have an anchor baby ) that causes you to pay the insurance deductible and raised premiums , and then they demand to be socialize with your taxes , perhaps the reality of their standing as hostile would clearer sense to you .

 

[Skylar]

" Sycophant Lying To Protect Criminal Elements "

* Illiterate At That *

So you admit that your inane babble about 'hostile agents' isn't the Wong ruling. It isn't the constitution. It isn't the caselaw. It isn't US law. It isn't the finding of any court. Ever.
Its just you making shit up. Well that only took you three days to admit. Oh, and FYI: The courts making no mention of whatever hapless pseudo-legal batshit you make up isn't 'malfeasance'. Its just you not having the slightest clue what you're talking about. And offering us your imagination as the law.

It is yourself " just making shit up " , as the only thing clearly evident is that there has not been a case ruling on whether children of a non legal migrant are entitled to citizenship , when subject to the contingency clause " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " .

Your badgering and lies are simply fear that is meant to divert a legitimate challenge for which the american people are entitled and ,whenever the responsibilities of public office are inappropriately carried out , that is malfeasance .

And by 'lies', you mean the actual Wong ruling, the actual court rulings, the actual US law.,....and not the hapless pseudo-legal batshit you make up? Again, the Wong ruling doesn't change just because its inconvenient to your argument. And they go into the legal foundation of birthright citizenship.

"The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King."

US V. Wong Kim Ark (1899)

Just exploding your hapless, poorly reasoned nonsense. As even children born to aliens are citizens at birth. Your claims that 'in amity' don't quality because illegals are a 'hostile agent' is more blithering idiocy. As neither the Wong court, nor ANY court, nor ANY US law has ever found this.

Its just you....making shit up. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

The Wong court is very clear on what they are referring to when excluding children born in country from citizenship: the children of ambassadors, alien enemies, and hostile occupation. None of which the Wong court, nor ANY court, nor ANY use law has ever found.

But say 'malfeasance' again. It makes me giggle.

And ' subject to the jurisdiction thereof " does not rely upon a standing of enmity , but if someone were to come onto your property without permission ( enter the country illegally ) and intentionally fall on your property ( have an anchor baby ) that causes you to pay the insurance deductible and raised premiums , and then they demand to be socialize with your taxes , perhaps the reality of their standing as hostile would clearer sense to you .

Your insistence that the standing of illegal immigrants is 'hostile' isn't reality. Its just more of your inane pseudo-legal gibberish backed by no law nor court ruling. Including Wong.

Is that really all you've got? Just you making up imaginary designations that no law nor court recognizes as valid and then insisting that the courts are bound to your imagination?

Perhaps the reality that your personal opinion and imaginary designations like 'hostile agent' have no relevance to a legal discussion as you are nobody would providing a clearer sense to you of the actual caselaw surrounding the issue.

As your intepretation of 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' most definitely does rely on 'in amity'. As the Wong court made it clear that children born to aliens in amity are citizens at birth per the legal foundations of birthright citizenship.

Try again. This time with less whining and useless opinion. As you're starting to bore me.

 

[Unkotare]

Trump understands - as few do - that the current practice of granting citizenship to ANYONE born here is bullshit, and based on an intentional mis-reading of a couple words in the 14th Amendment, to wit..."All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

The underlined words were inserted to exclude children of ambassadors and such who were working in the U.S. at the time of birth. These babies were subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' home country and not the U.S., and they would not be granted automatic citizenship.

It was NEVER intended that these words would be used to citizen-ize babies born in the U.S. to mothers who were here illegally. The current interpretation is based on a FOOTNOTE in a USSC opinion - not a binding ruling or precedent by any means - and carried forward by nothing more than inertia.

It has been said that a Constitutional Amendment would be required to change this, or at least Legislation, but as Trump also knows this too is bullshit. It is merely an incorrect interpretation of text, and carries no weight at all.

When Trump issues his Executive Order (assuming he goes through with it), the first "wetback" to be born here to illegal parents will SUE the Federal Government for recognition of its citizenship status, and the case - it may be presumed - will end up at the Supreme Court. Hopefully, on an expedited basis.

Guess what? The Leftists who controlled the court when this abomination was begun are all dead and gone, and there is a new sheriff in town. Although Roberts has shown himself to be a bit wobbly, it is very likely that the Court, when presented with this question, will merely re-state the obvious, and hold that Trump's EO DOES NOTHING TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION, that it merely corrects an unfortunate misinterpretation that has prevailed for many decades.

The people who have already been deemed to be citizens will not be affected, but this stupid, disastrous, unique-in-all-the-world policy will be HISTORY.

All Hail the TRUMPSTER!

It’s not going to change. Stop wasting energy and focus on securing the borders.

 

[danielpalos]

Trump understands - as few do - that the current practice of granting citizenship to ANYONE born here is bullshit, and based on an intentional mis-reading of a couple words in the 14th Amendment, to wit..."All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

The underlined words were inserted to exclude children of ambassadors and such who were working in the U.S. at the time of birth. These babies were subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' home country and not the U.S., and they would not be granted automatic citizenship.

It was NEVER intended that these words would be used to citizen-ize babies born in the U.S. to mothers who were here illegally. The current interpretation is based on a FOOTNOTE in a USSC opinion - not a binding ruling or precedent by any means - and carried forward by nothing more than inertia.

It has been said that a Constitutional Amendment would be required to change this, or at least Legislation, but as Trump also knows this too is bullshit. It is merely an incorrect interpretation of text, and carries no weight at all.

When Trump issues his Executive Order (assuming he goes through with it), the first "wetback" to be born here to illegal parents will SUE the Federal Government for recognition of its citizenship status, and the case - it may be presumed - will end up at the Supreme Court. Hopefully, on an expedited basis.

Guess what? The Leftists who controlled the court when this abomination was begun are all dead and gone, and there is a new sheriff in town. Although Roberts has shown himself to be a bit wobbly, it is very likely that the Court, when presented with this question, will merely re-state the obvious, and hold that Trump's EO DOES NOTHING TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION, that it merely corrects an unfortunate misinterpretation that has prevailed for many decades.

The people who have already been deemed to be citizens will not be affected, but this stupid, disastrous, unique-in-all-the-world policy will be HISTORY.

All Hail the TRUMPSTER!

Birthright citizenship is an illegal immigration magnet.
It was never meant for the offspring of illegal aliens.
There are probably 2 Billion people who want to immigrate to America.
If we don't control our immigration it could destroy our country.
The Dirty Democrats do not care about America's future.
They just want more money and power.

right wingers are lousy capitalists, that is all; they prefer their socialism on a national basis to finding capital solutions to our problems.

LMAO. Tell me more about your plan to pay people $15 per hour to stay home and play Scrabble. You Leftist dork.

lol. simply asking that question means you know Nothing about economics.

Liquidity in our markets is important.

 

[Skylar]

Trump understands - as few do - that the current practice of granting citizenship to ANYONE born here is bullshit, and based on an intentional mis-reading of a couple words in the 14th Amendment, to wit..."All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

The underlined words were inserted to exclude children of ambassadors and such who were working in the U.S. at the time of birth. These babies were subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' home country and not the U.S., and they would not be granted automatic citizenship.

It was NEVER intended that these words would be used to citizen-ize babies born in the U.S. to mothers who were here illegally. The current interpretation is based on a FOOTNOTE in a USSC opinion - not a binding ruling or precedent by any means - and carried forward by nothing more than inertia.

It has been said that a Constitutional Amendment would be required to change this, or at least Legislation, but as Trump also knows this too is bullshit. It is merely an incorrect interpretation of text, and carries no weight at all.

When Trump issues his Executive Order (assuming he goes through with it), the first "wetback" to be born here to illegal parents will SUE the Federal Government for recognition of its citizenship status, and the case - it may be presumed - will end up at the Supreme Court. Hopefully, on an expedited basis.

Guess what? The Leftists who controlled the court when this abomination was begun are all dead and gone, and there is a new sheriff in town. Although Roberts has shown himself to be a bit wobbly, it is very likely that the Court, when presented with this question, will merely re-state the obvious, and hold that Trump's EO DOES NOTHING TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION, that it merely corrects an unfortunate misinterpretation that has prevailed for many decades.

The people who have already been deemed to be citizens will not be affected, but this stupid, disastrous, unique-in-all-the-world policy will be HISTORY.

All Hail the TRUMPSTER!

It’s not going to change. Stop wasting energy and focus on securing the borders.

Actually, the solution is far simpler, effective and less expensive: make E-verify mandatory and back it with teeth when an employer ignores it. A minimum 1 year prison term for any employer that doesn't use E-verify when employing someone.

The E-verify system is already there. Its available online or in on the phone. Employer focused enforcement makes sense on multiple levels, as employers are the beneficiaries of illegal labor. There are far fewer of them, so you'll need fewer resources to police them. They advertise, so you know where to find employers. They generally don't move much. We know what their names are. And you wouldn't need but a few dozen high profile examples before employers got the message.

While employee focused enforcement is just stupid. As there are far more illegals than those employing them, meaning you need orders of magnitude more enforcement...which is more expensive. They move around. They usually live in secret, making them hard to find. They change names. And if they're deported, they can come back. And even after millions of deportations, they continuing to come here because there is still work for them here.

Its akin to going after the drug dealers rather than the drug users. And is far more effective.

And its not throwing the Employers under the bus either. If an Employer uses E-verify and an employee passes, they are completely absolved of any responsibility if later that employee turns out to be illegal. Its only those employers who doesn't e-verify their employees, or who ignore the results that would be subject to prosecution and imprisonment.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Trump understands - as few do - that the current practice of granting citizenship to ANYONE born here is bullshit, and based on an intentional mis-reading of a couple words in the 14th Amendment, to wit..."All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

The underlined words were inserted to exclude children of ambassadors and such who were working in the U.S. at the time of birth. These babies were subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' home country and not the U.S., and they would not be granted automatic citizenship.

It was NEVER intended that these words would be used to citizen-ize babies born in the U.S. to mothers who were here illegally. The current interpretation is based on a FOOTNOTE in a USSC opinion - not a binding ruling or precedent by any means - and carried forward by nothing more than inertia.

It has been said that a Constitutional Amendment would be required to change this, or at least Legislation, but as Trump also knows this too is bullshit. It is merely an incorrect interpretation of text, and carries no weight at all.

When Trump issues his Executive Order (assuming he goes through with it), the first "wetback" to be born here to illegal parents will SUE the Federal Government for recognition of its citizenship status, and the case - it may be presumed - will end up at the Supreme Court. Hopefully, on an expedited basis.

Guess what? The Leftists who controlled the court when this abomination was begun are all dead and gone, and there is a new sheriff in town. Although Roberts has shown himself to be a bit wobbly, it is very likely that the Court, when presented with this question, will merely re-state the obvious, and hold that Trump's EO DOES NOTHING TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION, that it merely corrects an unfortunate misinterpretation that has prevailed for many decades.

The people who have already been deemed to be citizens will not be affected, but this stupid, disastrous, unique-in-all-the-world policy will be HISTORY.

All Hail the TRUMPSTER!

Birthright citizenship is an illegal immigration magnet.
It was never meant for the offspring of illegal aliens.
There are probably 2 Billion people who want to immigrate to America.
If we don't control our immigration it could destroy our country.
The Dirty Democrats do not care about America's future.
They just want more money and power.

right wingers are lousy capitalists, that is all; they prefer their socialism on a national basis to finding capital solutions to our problems.

LMAO. Tell me more about your plan to pay people $15 per hour to stay home and play Scrabble. You Leftist dork.

lol. simply asking that question means you know Nothing about economics.

Liquidity in our markets is important.

Odd? I have an MBA from a top 30 school. But you know more than me...eh? LOL.

 

[danielpalos]

Trump understands - as few do - that the current practice of granting citizenship to ANYONE born here is bullshit, and based on an intentional mis-reading of a couple words in the 14th Amendment, to wit..."All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

The underlined words were inserted to exclude children of ambassadors and such who were working in the U.S. at the time of birth. These babies were subject to the jurisdiction of their parents' home country and not the U.S., and they would not be granted automatic citizenship.

It was NEVER intended that these words would be used to citizen-ize babies born in the U.S. to mothers who were here illegally. The current interpretation is based on a FOOTNOTE in a USSC opinion - not a binding ruling or precedent by any means - and carried forward by nothing more than inertia.

It has been said that a Constitutional Amendment would be required to change this, or at least Legislation, but as Trump also knows this too is bullshit. It is merely an incorrect interpretation of text, and carries no weight at all.

When Trump issues his Executive Order (assuming he goes through with it), the first "wetback" to be born here to illegal parents will SUE the Federal Government for recognition of its citizenship status, and the case - it may be presumed - will end up at the Supreme Court. Hopefully, on an expedited basis.

Guess what? The Leftists who controlled the court when this abomination was begun are all dead and gone, and there is a new sheriff in town. Although Roberts has shown himself to be a bit wobbly, it is very likely that the Court, when presented with this question, will merely re-state the obvious, and hold that Trump's EO DOES NOTHING TO CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION, that it merely corrects an unfortunate misinterpretation that has prevailed for many decades.

The people who have already been deemed to be citizens will not be affected, but this stupid, disastrous, unique-in-all-the-world policy will be HISTORY.

All Hail the TRUMPSTER!

Birthright citizenship is an illegal immigration magnet.
It was never meant for the offspring of illegal aliens.
There are probably 2 Billion people who want to immigrate to America.
If we don't control our immigration it could destroy our country.
The Dirty Democrats do not care about America's future.
They just want more money and power.

right wingers are lousy capitalists, that is all; they prefer their socialism on a national basis to finding capital solutions to our problems.

LMAO. Tell me more about your plan to pay people $15 per hour to stay home and play Scrabble. You Leftist dork.

lol. simply asking that question means you know Nothing about economics.

Liquidity in our markets is important.

Odd? I have an MBA from a top 30 school. But you know more than me...eh? LOL.

It is more cost effective than means tested welfare.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Birthright citizenship is an illegal immigration magnet.
It was never meant for the offspring of illegal aliens.
There are probably 2 Billion people who want to immigrate to America.
If we don't control our immigration it could destroy our country.
The Dirty Democrats do not care about America's future.
They just want more money and power.

right wingers are lousy capitalists, that is all; they prefer their socialism on a national basis to finding capital solutions to our problems.

LMAO. Tell me more about your plan to pay people $15 per hour to stay home and play Scrabble. You Leftist dork.

lol. simply asking that question means you know Nothing about economics.

Liquidity in our markets is important.

Odd? I have an MBA from a top 30 school. But you know more than me...eh? LOL.

It is more cost effective than means tested welfare.

No it is not because more people would game the system then. You are using an incorrect input for population here.

 

[danielpalos]

right wingers are lousy capitalists, that is all; they prefer their socialism on a national basis to finding capital solutions to our problems.

LMAO. Tell me more about your plan to pay people $15 per hour to stay home and play Scrabble. You Leftist dork.

lol. simply asking that question means you know Nothing about economics.

Liquidity in our markets is important.

Odd? I have an MBA from a top 30 school. But you know more than me...eh? LOL.

It is more cost effective than means tested welfare.

No it is not because more people would game the system then. You are using an incorrect input for population here.

just your special pleading.

no need to "game the system" if you can collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

and, under the new regime, "gaming the system" would actually require a work ethic.

why not tax the increased income. That Is what the EDD office should be good for; some people may actually benefit from it and could have an EDD "counselor" to help out with the "rest of the stuff".

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

LMAO. Tell me more about your plan to pay people $15 per hour to stay home and play Scrabble. You Leftist dork.

lol. simply asking that question means you know Nothing about economics.

Liquidity in our markets is important.

Odd? I have an MBA from a top 30 school. But you know more than me...eh? LOL.

It is more cost effective than means tested welfare.

No it is not because more people would game the system then. You are using an incorrect input for population here.

just your special pleading.

no need to "game the system" if you can collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

and, under the new regime, "gaming the system" would actually require a work ethic.

why not tax the increased income. That Is what the EDD office should be good for; some people may actually benefit from it and could have an EDD "counselor" to help out with the "rest of the stuff".

LMAO. I really need to spell it out for you?

 

[Monk-Eye]

" More Action Less Talk Deny Citizenship To Children Of An Illegal And Bring A Test Case To Court "

* Feigning Legitimacy Against Opposing Odds *

And by 'lies', you mean the actual Wong ruling, the actual court rulings, the actual US law.,....and not the hapless pseudo-legal batshit you make up?

Anchor baby - Wikipedia
As of 2015, there has been no Supreme Court decision that explicitly holds that persons born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants are automatically afforded U.S. citizenship.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30] Edward Erler, writing for the Claremont Institute, said that since the Wong Kim Ark case dealt with someone whose parents were in the United States legally, it provides no valid basis under the 14th Amendment for the practice of granting citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.

* Migrant Without Permission Is Disobedience And Those Heisting Social Welfare Via Anchor Babies Are Hostile *

.. were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King."

Obviously , determining whether an individual is or is not eligible as a subject was at the discretion of the king ; however , in the us , we do not have a king , rather we have citizens and clause " subject to the jurisdiction thereof " which are more than capable of delimiting the validity of that criteria ; and , those citizens corroborating in criminal behavior should be duly noted for their hostility .

* Political Incompetence Would Not Be The First Time *

Try again. This time with less whining and useless opinion. As you're starting to bore me.

I was bored with you about three posts ago , as you cannot seem to maintain focus on points of issue , ultimately pretending that the issues were not presented .

the definition of malfeasance
The performance by a public official of an act that is legally unjustified, harmful, or contrary to law; wrongdoing (used especially of an act in violation of a public trust).

 

[danielpalos]

lol. simply asking that question means you know Nothing about economics.

Liquidity in our markets is important.

Odd? I have an MBA from a top 30 school. But you know more than me...eh? LOL.

It is more cost effective than means tested welfare.

No it is not because more people would game the system then. You are using an incorrect input for population here.

just your special pleading.

no need to "game the system" if you can collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

and, under the new regime, "gaming the system" would actually require a work ethic.

why not tax the increased income. That Is what the EDD office should be good for; some people may actually benefit from it and could have an EDD "counselor" to help out with the "rest of the stuff".

LMAO. I really need to spell it out for you?

yes, you do. the right wing usually has Nothing but fallacy but allege their right wing fantasy is the "gospel Truth".

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Odd? I have an MBA from a top 30 school. But you know more than me...eh? LOL.

It is more cost effective than means tested welfare.

No it is not because more people would game the system then. You are using an incorrect input for population here.

just your special pleading.

no need to "game the system" if you can collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

and, under the new regime, "gaming the system" would actually require a work ethic.

why not tax the increased income. That Is what the EDD office should be good for; some people may actually benefit from it and could have an EDD "counselor" to help out with the "rest of the stuff".

LMAO. I really need to spell it out for you?

yes, you do. the right wing usually has Nothing but fallacy but allege their right wing fantasy is the "gospel Truth".

OK

1. What percentage of Americans are on welfare?
   Through the fourth quarter of 2012, there were nearly 110 million Americans receiving some form of government assistance. That's right around 35% of the total U.S. population.
   
   
   
   
   
2. How many Americans receive food stamps?
   As of September 2014, about 46.5 million people (or 15%) were receiving food stamps through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
   
   
   
   
   
3. How many get Medicaid benefits?
   Medicaid is a health care program that provides free or low-cost care to qualifying individuals and families. As of 2012, there were some 83 million people (or 26%) receiving Medicaid benefits.
   
   
   
   
   
4. What is the gender breakdown of those receiving welfare?
   Women are more likely to seek help through welfare programs. Close to 25% of those aged 16 to 64 were receiving benefits as of 2011. Among men in the same age range, slightly more than 19% received some type of welfare.
   
   
   
   
   
5. What percentage of children are on welfare?
   Children are more likely to be on welfare than adults, with 38% of kids aged 5 and under living in households that receive public assistance. Almost 35% of kids aged 6 to 10 and 32% of those in the 11- to 15-year-old range are on welfare.
   
   
   
   
   
6. What state has the highest number of welfare recipients?
   As of 2012, California topped the list for welfare recipients, with nearly 515,000 relying on government-funded programs. Alaska, however, has the highest per capita rate with about 7% of households getting benefits.
   
   
   
   
   
7. What state has the most people on food stamps?
   Approximately 145,000 Washington, D.C., residents receive food stamps. That's nearly 22% of the district's total population.
   
   
   
   
   
8. How long do most people participate in the program?
   About 31% of people receiving any kind of public assistance stay in the program for a year or less. 43% receive benefits between 3 to 4 years. Housing assistance programs see the most long-term participants (over 3 years), while cash assistance program tend to have the most short-term participants (under a year).
   
   
   
   
   
9. What do most people on welfare spend the money on?
   Many people stereotype welfare receivers as spending the money unwisely, but data shows that for families receiving assistance, 77% of the budget is used towards basic necessities such as housing, food, and transportation (compared to 65% for families not receiving assistance). Entertainment only accounts for 4.4% of the budget.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It is more cost effective than means tested welfare.

No it is not because more people would game the system then. You are using an incorrect input for population here.

just your special pleading.

no need to "game the system" if you can collect unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed.

and, under the new regime, "gaming the system" would actually require a work ethic.

why not tax the increased income. That Is what the EDD office should be good for; some people may actually benefit from it and could have an EDD "counselor" to help out with the "rest of the stuff".

LMAO. I really need to spell it out for you?

yes, you do. the right wing usually has Nothing but fallacy but allege their right wing fantasy is the "gospel Truth".

OK

1. What percentage of Americans are on welfare?
   Through the fourth quarter of 2012, there were nearly 110 million Americans receiving some form of government assistance. That's right around 35% of the total U.S. population.
   
   
   
   
   
2. How many Americans receive food stamps?
   As of September 2014, about 46.5 million people (or 15%) were receiving food stamps through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
   
   
   
   
   
3. How many get Medicaid benefits?
   Medicaid is a health care program that provides free or low-cost care to qualifying individuals and families. As of 2012, there were some 83 million people (or 26%) receiving Medicaid benefits.
   
   
   
   
   
4. What is the gender breakdown of those receiving welfare?
   Women are more likely to seek help through welfare programs. Close to 25% of those aged 16 to 64 were receiving benefits as of 2011. Among men in the same age range, slightly more than 19% received some type of welfare.
   
   
   
   
   
5. What percentage of children are on welfare?
   Children are more likely to be on welfare than adults, with 38% of kids aged 5 and under living in households that receive public assistance. Almost 35% of kids aged 6 to 10 and 32% of those in the 11- to 15-year-old range are on welfare.
   
   
   
   
   
6. What state has the highest number of welfare recipients?
   As of 2012, California topped the list for welfare recipients, with nearly 515,000 relying on government-funded programs. Alaska, however, has the highest per capita rate with about 7% of households getting benefits.
   
   
   
   
   
7. What state has the most people on food stamps?
   Approximately 145,000 Washington, D.C., residents receive food stamps. That's nearly 22% of the district's total population.
   
   
   
   
   
8. How long do most people participate in the program?
   About 31% of people receiving any kind of public assistance stay in the program for a year or less. 43% receive benefits between 3 to 4 years. Housing assistance programs see the most long-term participants (over 3 years), while cash assistance program tend to have the most short-term participants (under a year).
   
   
   
   
   
9. What do most people on welfare spend the money on?
   Many people stereotype welfare receivers as spending the money unwisely, but data shows that for families receiving assistance, 77% of the budget is used towards basic necessities such as housing, food, and transportation (compared to 65% for families not receiving assistance). Entertainment only accounts for 4.4% of the budget.

23 Shocking Statistics of Welfare in America

 

[danielpalos]

Compensation for Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment is more cost effective.

 

[Skylar]

" More Action Less Talk Deny Citizenship To Children Of An Illegal And Bring A Test Case To Court "

* Feigning Legitimacy Against Opposing Odds *

And by 'lies', you mean the actual Wong ruling, the actual court rulings, the actual US law.,....and not the hapless pseudo-legal batshit you make up?

Anchor baby - Wikipedia
As of 2015, there has been no Supreme Court decision that explicitly holds that persons born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants are automatically afforded U.S. citizenship.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30] Edward Erler, writing for the Claremont Institute, said that since the Wong Kim Ark case dealt with someone whose parents were in the United States legally, it provides no valid basis under the 14th Amendment for the practice of granting citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.

All gloriously irrelevant to your made up claim that illegal immigrants aren't 'aliens in amity' but instead 'hostile agents'.

The Wong ruling never finds that illegal immigrants are 'hostile agents'. Nor does any law. Nor does any court. You made that up, citing yourself. Which is legally irrelevant as you're nobody. Making your 'hostile agent' claim pseudo-legal claptrap.

As for Wong, it finds that the children of legal immigrants are citizens. It *never* finds that the children are illegal immigrants are not citizens. In fact, when discussing the legal foundation of birthright citizenship, the Wong court cited this:

"The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King."

Children born in England, even to aliens, are citizens at birth.

You have yet to offer us any contradiction of this in the law. You merely quote your own personal opinion which has no legal relevance.

* Migrant Without Permission Is Disobedience And Those Heisting Social Welfare Via Anchor Babies Are Hostile *

Says you, citing whatever meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish you choose to make up.
The Wong ruling never finds this to be true. Nor does any court ruling. Nor does any US law.

You made it up. And your imagination has no legal relevance.

.. were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King."

Obviously , determining whether an individual is or is not eligible as a subject was at the discretion of the king

Obviously, the Wong court never found that the "whether an individual is or is not eligible as a subject was at the discretion of the king"

Obviously, you're making shit up again. You citing you is always meaningless. Anytime you're citing yourself as a foundational legal principle, you've lost.

Try again. This time without the meaningless pseudo-legal gibberish.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Anchor Baby Fraud Thievery By Hostile Agents Thwarting Subject To Legal Jurisdiction "

* Fleeing A Dump Demanding To Recreate The Same Dump With Better Drapes *

23 Shocking Statistics of Welfare in America

You omitted some relevant parts for the left wing , steal from the middle class , we need more state dependent voters for our luny tunes , socialist , cause .

23 Shocking Statistics of Welfare in America
Aside from looking at the age and gender of welfare recipients, we wanted to take things one step further. We focused on some specific demographics to paint a more accurate image of who in America gets help through public assistance.

1. How do ethnicities break down?
   For 2011, here's the breakdown of welfare recipients: 16.3% of Non-Hispanic Whites. 39.7% of Non-Hispanic Blacks. 36.4% of Hispanics. Hispanics represent the fastest rate of growth for any demographic group (a 15% increase since the year 2000).
   Note: Recipiency is defined as living in a family with receipt of any amount of AFDC/TANF, SSI or SNAP during the year.
2. What percentage of welfare recipients are immigrants?
   There are approximately 40 million immigrants living in the U.S., both legal and illegal, and a decent number of them receive some form of welfare. For example, 20% of adult immigrants and nearly half of children from immigrant households had Medicaid coverage in 2011. About 30% of non-citizens received food stamps that same year.