Will Trump end up alienating his core support?

[Stephanie]

What's funny, is these people have no idea who Trump "core supporters" are. Pollutico tried to say it was the Tea Party, which is joke. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of his supporters are ex-Obama supporters. He's pissed on and off every core group in the country except for his hard core cult members.

anyone know who Sanders core supporters are? I'd say every radical hard leftie in the country. which includes, anarchist, commies, socialist, atheist, devil worshippers, etc. and I'm sure I left out a few radical vagabonds.

 

[bendog]

Onus is on you to invent your own "context" and prove that it is the Law of the Land, dullard.

The context of the 14th was written at the close of the civil war. I don't need to invent it. All I have to do is read it.

Too bad you lack the comprehension to understand what you are reading.

Meh... again... just because you are an idiot, does not mean everyone else is too.

Ironic given that you cannot provide one shred of evidence to support your bloviating.

No evidence is needed by me, dumb ass. There's plenty of support for my view. The facts are clear.. the Amendment is not clear in this regard and needs congress to pass a bill that clarifies what the law is or is not regarding this issue.

You're saying there's plenty of evidence but you don't know what it is, and then you call someone stupid. Sweet. LOL

But here's the deal. Under British common law, and US common law, BEFORE THE 14TH, jurisdiction meant being inside the borders. From Wong Kim Ark:

enacted that "all and every person or persons, being the King's natural-born subject or subjects, within any of the King's realms or dominions," might and should thereafter lawfully inherit and make their titles by descent to any lands

"from any of their ancestors, lineal or collateral, although the father and mother, or father or mother, or other ancestor, of such person or persons, by, from, through or under whom"

title should be made or derived, had been or should be "born out of the King's allegiance, and out of is Majesty's realms and dominions," as fully and effectually, as if such parents or ancestors "had been naturalized or natural-born subject or subjects within the King's dominions." 7 Statutes of the Realm, 90. It may be observed that, throughout that statute, persons born within the realm, although children of alien parents, were called "natural-born subjects." As that statute included persons born "within any of the King's realms or dominions," it, of course, extended to the Colonies, and, not having been repealed in Maryland, was in force there. In McCreery v. Somerville, (1824) 9 Wheat. 354, which concerned the title to land in the State of Maryland, it was assumed that children born in that State of an alien who was still living, and who had not been naturalized, were "native-born citizens of the

22 U. S. 356.

Again, in Levy v. McCartee (1832), 6 Pet. 102, 31 U. S. 112, 31 U. S. 113, 31 U. S. 115, which concerned a descent cast since the American Revolution, in the State of New York, where the statute of 11 & 12 Will. III had been repealed, this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, quoting the statement of Lord Coke
------

HOWEVER, these situations arose before there were statutes saying "No Chinese (or Mexicans or whatever) welcome." And the 14th also predated those types of statutes. The 14th applied to former slaves and was to permanently end slavery. But excluding Native Americans doesn't help or hinder any argument, because the rule was they were part of a separate sovereign nation uniquely within the borders.

The question is very simple, but the answer is not so much. Can two people here illegally birth a citizen? Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) seems to say yes. But, citizenship was not a key issue. Congress could pass a law saying illegal immigrants do not evidence the intent to align themselves with this country's interests, and while they and their offspring are afforded all protection guaranteed foreign nationals, they are not, and cannot become, citizens. It might just barely be possible five justices would say ..... well we've never really addressed that issue, and if we can we're supposed to say congress has the power to do want it did. (Obamacare) BUT, if five justices would agree that such a law actually takes rights away ... there's no way it survives. But, it'd take 60plus senators and Trump to do it, so .... it's not going to happen.

 

[bendog]

What's funny, is these people have no idea who Trump "core supporters" are. Pollutico tried to say it was the Tea Party, which is joke. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of his supporters are ex-Obama supporters. He's pissed on and off every core group in the country except for his hard core cult members.

anyone know who Sanders core supporters are? I'd say every radical hard leftie in the country. which includes, anarchist, commies, socialist, atheist, devil worshippers, etc. and I'm sure I left out a few radical vagabonds.

I came close to agreeing with you there, until you turned your usual hateful self. LOL

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's funny, is these people have no idea who Trump "core supporters" are. Pollutico tried to say it was the Tea Party, which is joke. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of his supporters are ex-Obama supporters. He's pissed on and off every core group in the country except for his hard core cult members.

anyone know who Sanders core supporters are? I'd say every radical hard leftie in the country. which includes, anarchist, commies, socialist, atheist, devil worshippers, etc. and I'm sure I left out a few radical vagabonds.

Are you?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Vocal support for Trump on this forum seems to have trickled down to a handful of RWnuts.

 

[Stephanie]

What's funny, is these people have no idea who Trump "core supporters" are. Pollutico tried to say it was the Tea Party, which is joke. I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of his supporters are ex-Obama supporters. He's pissed on and off every core group in the country except for his hard core cult members.

anyone know who Sanders core supporters are? I'd say every radical hard leftie in the country. which includes, anarchist, commies, socialist, atheist, devil worshippers, etc. and I'm sure I left out a few radical vagabonds.

I came close to agreeing with you there, until you turned your usual hateful self. LOL

where is the hate? or you're just being hateful because you didn't have to respond to my post what-so-ever

 

[bendog]

Vocal support for Trump on this forum seems to have trickled down to a handful of RWnuts.

I don't dismiss the Donald.

 

[Stephanie]

but maybe you left wingers can make up for those you claim he will lose because he's NOT rightwing enough and go vote him. and you even threw the little old lady who wouldn't issue a piece of paper in there. why would those hard core rightwingers support her? she's a registered Democrat. you claim they hate Muslims so wouldn't they hate the Democrat lady too? that folks is how you know that was all made up but it's pleases these leftwinger to believe that of their fellow country and women, so what can you can do. blaaaa

 

[Mertex]

No it's not guaranteed, not in the constitution it isn't.

BZZZT Wrong!

It explicitly states in the Constitution that anyone born within the jurisdiction of the USA is a citizen.

Fourteenth Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution reads:

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.

Maybe you should read the rest of the text idiot. "subject to the jurisdiction of".....ILLEGALS are subject to the jurisdiction of the country from which they came.

Thus NOT automatic citizens.

The parents may be illegals and subject to the jurisdiction of their country....but the child born in the US is a US Citizen. If it were like you claim, then your leaders wouldn't have the need to call these children "anchor babies" and be clamoring to change it - even a 5th grader can figure that out. Try and use your brain once in a while.

 

[Mertex]

No it's not guaranteed, not in the constitution it isn't.

BZZZT Wrong!

It explicitly states in the Constitution that anyone born within the jurisdiction of the USA is a citizen.

Fourteenth Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution reads:

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 you are wrong. That Section does not say all people around the world are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA and thus can simply travel here have one kid here five minutes after arriving and then grandfather in their whole clan based on having illegally come to America to have a child that is an American.

Geez, are all conservatives that dense? If it were like you claim, why are your leaders trying to change it? Use some logic.....anyone born in the US is a US citizen, has been that way ever since I can remember.....it doesn't matter if the parents have only been here 1 minute......whether you like it or not.

 

[the_human_being]

Trump, after Republican pledge, breaks from pack on Iran, gay marriage

Trump's core support are right wing Republicans.

Generally they are against the Iran deal. Trump has said he would work with it.

Generally they are in favor of Kim Davis' defying of the the US Constitution. Trump has said she should obey the law.

""We are a nation of laws," Trump said. "The decision's been made, and that's the law of the land.""

Trump also was more positive towards accepting refugees from Syria, when core Republican support is anti-Muslim and anti-immigration, which would be both of these.

So, will Trump lose his core support before the primaries simply because he's just not actually that right wing?

Wet dreams of a Left Wing Liberal Obama worshipper.

 

[DarkFury]

No it's not guaranteed, not in the constitution it isn't.

BZZZT Wrong!

It explicitly states in the Constitution that anyone born within the jurisdiction of the USA is a citizen.

Fourteenth Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution reads:

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.

Maybe you should read the rest of the text idiot. "subject to the jurisdiction of".....ILLEGALS are subject to the jurisdiction of the country from which they came.

Thus NOT automatic citizens.

The parents may be illegals and subject to the jurisdiction of their country....but the child born in the US is a US Citizen. If it were like you claim, then your leaders wouldn't have the need to call these children "anchor babies" and be clamoring to change it - even a 5th grader can figure that out. Try and use your brain once in a while.

Better read the "Exclusion Law" because YOU are wrong. It's a sub section of the 14th. Bans an entire race when that race overloads the country. Already supported and tested by the Supreme court YEARS ago.

NITWIT.

 

[RKMBrown]

No it's not guaranteed, not in the constitution it isn't.

BZZZT Wrong!

It explicitly states in the Constitution that anyone born within the jurisdiction of the USA is a citizen.

Fourteenth Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution reads:

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 you are wrong. That Section does not say all people around the world are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA and thus can simply travel here have one kid here five minutes after arriving and then grandfather in their whole clan based on having illegally come to America to have a child that is an American.

Geez, are all conservatives that dense? If it were like you claim, why are your leaders trying to change it? Use some logic.....anyone born in the US is a US citizen, has been that way ever since I can remember.....it doesn't matter if the parents have only been here 1 minute......whether you like it or not.

Your ability to read and comprehend even simple sentences is failing you. It's not a matter of being dense. The reason folks want it changed is because it's wrong. Birth right citizenship hasn't always been the way we do it... what changed will change again.

 

[DarkFury]

Vocal support for Trump on this forum seems to have trickled down to a handful of RWnuts.

I keep track of the numbers and it's growing. You know what number is falling. The number of clown trash here is down 50% from six months ago.

 

[RKMBrown]

The context of the 14th was written at the close of the civil war. I don't need to invent it. All I have to do is read it.

Too bad you lack the comprehension to understand what you are reading.

Meh... again... just because you are an idiot, does not mean everyone else is too.

Ironic given that you cannot provide one shred of evidence to support your bloviating.

No evidence is needed by me, dumb ass. There's plenty of support for my view. The facts are clear.. the Amendment is not clear in this regard and needs congress to pass a bill that clarifies what the law is or is not regarding this issue.

You're saying there's plenty of evidence but you don't know what it is, and then you call someone stupid. Sweet. LOL

But here's the deal. Under British common law, and US common law, BEFORE THE 14TH, jurisdiction meant being inside the borders. From Wong Kim Ark:

enacted that "all and every person or persons, being the King's natural-born subject or subjects, within any of the King's realms or dominions," might and should thereafter lawfully inherit and make their titles by descent to any lands

"from any of their ancestors, lineal or collateral, although the father and mother, or father or mother, or other ancestor, of such person or persons, by, from, through or under whom"

title should be made or derived, had been or should be "born out of the King's allegiance, and out of is Majesty's realms and dominions," as fully and effectually, as if such parents or ancestors "had been naturalized or natural-born subject or subjects within the King's dominions." 7 Statutes of the Realm, 90. It may be observed that, throughout that statute, persons born within the realm, although children of alien parents, were called "natural-born subjects." As that statute included persons born "within any of the King's realms or dominions," it, of course, extended to the Colonies, and, not having been repealed in Maryland, was in force there. In McCreery v. Somerville, (1824) 9 Wheat. 354, which concerned the title to land in the State of Maryland, it was assumed that children born in that State of an alien who was still living, and who had not been naturalized, were "native-born citizens of the

22 U. S. 356.

Again, in Levy v. McCartee (1832), 6 Pet. 102, 31 U. S. 112, 31 U. S. 113, 31 U. S. 115, which concerned a descent cast since the American Revolution, in the State of New York, where the statute of 11 & 12 Will. III had been repealed, this court, speaking by Mr. Justice Story, held that the case must rest for its decision exclusively upon the principles of the common law, and treated it as unquestionable that, by that law, a child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, quoting the statement of Lord Coke
------

HOWEVER, these situations arose before there were statutes saying "No Chinese (or Mexicans or whatever) welcome." And the 14th also predated those types of statutes. The 14th applied to former slaves and was to permanently end slavery. But excluding Native Americans doesn't help or hinder any argument, because the rule was they were part of a separate sovereign nation uniquely within the borders.

The question is very simple, but the answer is not so much. Can two people here illegally birth a citizen? Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) seems to say yes. But, citizenship was not a key issue. Congress could pass a law saying illegal immigrants do not evidence the intent to align themselves with this country's interests, and while they and their offspring are afforded all protection guaranteed foreign nationals, they are not, and cannot become, citizens. It might just barely be possible five justices would say ..... well we've never really addressed that issue, and if we can we're supposed to say congress has the power to do want it did. (Obamacare) BUT, if five justices would agree that such a law actually takes rights away ... there's no way it survives. But, it'd take 60plus senators and Trump to do it, so .... it's not going to happen.

FYI we are not under British common law... we fought a revolutionary war to change that. US Common law? What the fuck are you on? To presume that we are now "under" common law is ludicrous. FYI I note that at the end of your cut and paste the text agrees with my statement. Cutting and pasting something that echos what I said is not the same as refuting what I said.

 

[Mertex]

No it's not guaranteed, not in the constitution it isn't.

BZZZT Wrong!

It explicitly states in the Constitution that anyone born within the jurisdiction of the USA is a citizen.

Fourteenth Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution reads:

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.

Maybe you should read the rest of the text idiot. "subject to the jurisdiction of".....ILLEGALS are subject to the jurisdiction of the country from which they came.

Thus NOT automatic citizens.

BZZZT Wrong again, Baby Huey.

Anyone who is within the borders of any US territory is subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. Their nationality is irrelevant.

What you are proposing is that the USA does not have sovereignty over the people within it's own borders.

That is utterly absurd.

Not to mention ignorant.

They are NOT subject to our tax laws our schooling regulations our vacination laws and MANY others. You are thinking criminal laws which shows your narrow minded scope.

Jurisdiction laws and criminal laws are different SO you are WRONG again.

The baby is innocent (as you all like to say when discussing abortion) so, he is not subject to our tax laws because he hasn't earned any money, and yes, he will be entitled to be publicly schooled and vaccinated......because he is a citizen of the United States. Quit listening to that ding bat Ann Coulter....she's dumber than a rock. Anyone born in the US is automatically a US Citizen....deal with it.

 

[Mertex]

BZZZT Wrong!

It explicitly states in the Constitution that anyone born within the jurisdiction of the USA is a citizen.

Fourteenth Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution reads:

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.

Maybe you should read the rest of the text idiot. "subject to the jurisdiction of".....ILLEGALS are subject to the jurisdiction of the country from which they came.

Thus NOT automatic citizens.

BZZZT Wrong again, Baby Huey.

Anyone who is within the borders of any US territory is subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. Their nationality is irrelevant.

What you are proposing is that the USA does not have sovereignty over the people within it's own borders.

That is utterly absurd.

Not to mention ignorant.

They are NOT subject to our tax laws our schooling regulations our vacination laws and MANY others. You are thinking criminal laws which shows your narrow minded scope.

Jurisdiction laws and criminal laws are different SO you are WRONG again.

Jurisdiction refers to all Laws of the Land covering a geographical area and the persons within that area.

An illegal alien is subject to the same driving speed limits that you are. They must pay the same sales tax that you do.

Your ignorance is on a par with the rest of the extremist rightwingers on the short bus.

Jurisdiction is a broad term. As is welfare. Not surprisingly, you libtards are incapable of reading in context.

Says the idiot who supports the party that is desperately trying to change the 14th Amendment because they don't want illegals having babies here and having to recognize their babies as US Citizens....and now claims that the 14th Amendment doesn't actually grant those born of illegal parents US citizenship.

First, you all need to decide which one you are going to choose....and then stick to it if you are going to try and change it.....right now, you are just confused and claiming that something that you all want to change, doesn't really need to be changed!

 

[RKMBrown]

Maybe you should read the rest of the text idiot. "subject to the jurisdiction of".....ILLEGALS are subject to the jurisdiction of the country from which they came.

Thus NOT automatic citizens.

BZZZT Wrong again, Baby Huey.

Anyone who is within the borders of any US territory is subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. Their nationality is irrelevant.

What you are proposing is that the USA does not have sovereignty over the people within it's own borders.

That is utterly absurd.

Not to mention ignorant.

They are NOT subject to our tax laws our schooling regulations our vacination laws and MANY others. You are thinking criminal laws which shows your narrow minded scope.

Jurisdiction laws and criminal laws are different SO you are WRONG again.

Jurisdiction refers to all Laws of the Land covering a geographical area and the persons within that area.

An illegal alien is subject to the same driving speed limits that you are. They must pay the same sales tax that you do.

Your ignorance is on a par with the rest of the extremist rightwingers on the short bus.

Jurisdiction is a broad term. As is welfare. Not surprisingly, you libtards are incapable of reading in context.

Says the idiot who supports the party that is desperately trying to change the 14th Amendment because they don't want illegals having babies here and having to recognize their babies as US Citizens....and now claims that the 14th Amendment doesn't actually grant those born of illegal parents US citizenship.

First, you all need to decide which one you are going to choose....and then stick to it if you are going to try and change it.....right now, you are just confused and claiming that something that you all want to change, doesn't really need to be changed!

I'm not republican, ya dumb ass. The fourteenth does not support birth right citizenship, ya dumb ass.

 

[DarkFury]

No it's not guaranteed, not in the constitution it isn't.

BZZZT Wrong!

It explicitly states in the Constitution that anyone born within the jurisdiction of the USA is a citizen.

Fourteenth Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution reads:

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.

Maybe you should read the rest of the text idiot. "subject to the jurisdiction of".....ILLEGALS are subject to the jurisdiction of the country from which they came.

Thus NOT automatic citizens.

BZZZT Wrong again, Baby Huey.

Anyone who is within the borders of any US territory is subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. Their nationality is irrelevant.

What you are proposing is that the USA does not have sovereignty over the people within it's own borders.

That is utterly absurd.

Not to mention ignorant.

They are NOT subject to our tax laws our schooling regulations our vacination laws and MANY others. You are thinking criminal laws which shows your narrow minded scope.

Jurisdiction laws and criminal laws are different SO you are WRONG again.

The baby is innocent (as you all like to say when discussing abortion) so, he is not subject to our tax laws because he hasn't earned any money, and yes, he will be entitled to be publicly schooled and vaccinated......because he is a citizen of the United States. Quit listening to that ding bat Ann Coulter....she's dumber than a rock. Anyone born in the US is automatically a US Citizen....deal with it.

Have you or have you not idiot read the law of exclusion? It's a law on books. You know just like the kind YOU color in.

 

[Mertex]

No it's not guaranteed, not in the constitution it isn't.

BZZZT Wrong!

It explicitly states in the Constitution that anyone born within the jurisdiction of the USA is a citizen.

Fourteenth Amendment
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution reads:

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 you are wrong. That Section does not say all people around the world are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA and thus can simply travel here have one kid here five minutes after arriving and then grandfather in their whole clan based on having illegally come to America to have a child that is an American.

Your ignorance is always so readily apparent.

The jurisdiction of the USA applies to all territory within it's borders.

So the nationality of any individual within those border is immaterial to the USA having jurisdiction over them.

And the 14th Amendment clearly states that anyone born within those borders is automatically a citizen. There are no caveats or restrictions or exemptions.

Deal with it.

You're confusing or at least conflating territorial jurisdiction with citizenship. But I'm not surprised given that your IQ is 1/2 mine.

Prove it, lackwit.

Provide the legal and constitutional basis demonstrating that the 14th Amendment does not apply to anyone with the jurisdiction of the USA.

They need to point out to Lindsey Graham that he is stupid....that there is no need to change the 14th Amendment......because the 14th Amendment doesn't really say what we thought it said, (according to the neo-con-genuises).....


But now at least one prominent Republican lawmaker wants to change the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which grants American citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil.

"Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake," Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told Fox News last week. "We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen."
Immigration Loophole? GOP Targets 14th Amendment