3/5 Of A Human Being

[Monk-Eye]

" La Raza Sycophants "

* Out Of Your Criminal Mind *

But illegals pay taxes now, which is greater than what their heath care costs would be, anyway.

Prove it , rather than talking out your anti-racist racist ass .

https://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/USCostStudy_2010.pdf

at the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. at the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.

most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the u.s. treasury.

Illegal Aliens: National Net Cost Estimates Vary Widely

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the costs of providing benefits and services to illegal aliens, focusing on: (1) current estimates...

www.gao.gov

GAO found that: (1) illegal aliens in the United States generate more in costs than revenues to federal, state, and local governments combined; (2) estimates of the national net cost of illegal aliens vary greatly, ranging from $2 billion to $19 billion; (3) a great deal of uncertainty remains about the national fiscal impact of illegal aliens, because little data exists on illegal aliens' use of public services and tax payments;

Your taxpayer dollars are footing the spiraling costs of illegal immigration

Keep in mind that the costs due to illegal immigration well exceed the amount to build the wall.

thehill.com

One of the major drivers of the increasing costs is the 4.2 million children of migrants, who automatically become American citizens. Taxpayers are indeed on the hook for over $45 billion in state and federal education spending annually, not to mention the added burden of increased social welfare dollars. Much of the almost $30 billion in medical and assistance funding is sparked by the fact that noncitizen families in the United States are twice as likely to receive welfare payments than native born families.

 

[Rigby5]

BECAUSE blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866

Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union. The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.

Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.

Simply being born in the US confers citizenship. Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.

wrong snowflake not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion

The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.

Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.

A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.

The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn't

Not disagreeing that they did not get citizenship rights.
But I also agree with "danielp", that they should have had citizenship rights.
Their ancestors were taken as slaves and shipped her under the power of the crown, not US law.
And the whole point of the rebellion was a rejection of the arbitrary authority of the crown.
There really never was any ability under US law then for slavery to ever exist or for people born here to be slaves just because their parents or other ancestors had illegally been treated as slaves.
The founders really had no authority to allow slavery from British rule to continue.
I realize it was really a state issue back then.
But we really should not have needed a 14th amendment.
It should already have been intuitive.
Which is what I think "danielp" is saying.
That those born here should have been full US citizens, regardless of he status of their parents.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

BECAUSE blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866

Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union. The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.

Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.

Simply being born in the US confers citizenship. Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.

wrong snowflake not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion

The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.

Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.

A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.

The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn't

Not disagreeing that they did not get citizenship rights.
But I also agree with "danielp", that they should have had citizenship rights.
Their ancestors were taken as slaves and shipped her under the power of the crown, not US law.
And the whole point of the rebellion was a rejection of the arbitrary authority of the crown.
There really never was any ability under US law then for slavery to ever exist or for people born here to be slaves just because their parents or other ancestors had illegally been treated as slaves.
The founders really had no authority to allow slavery from British rule to continue.
I realize it was really a state issue back then.
But we really should not have needed a 14th amendment.
It should already have been intuitive.
Which is what I think "danielp" is saying.
That those born here should have been full US citizens, regardless of he status of their parents.

It's not about should've would've could've laws prevented it from happening laws deemed constitutional by the supreme court supported by their Dread Scott decision. Until the 14th amendment ratification and the creation of the civil rights act of 1866 that would've should've could've is moot.
It's like when the supreme rules unconstitutional gun laws constitutional anything that infringes on the rights of law abiding citizens from having their weapon of choice is unconstitutional but old danny boy isn't bitching about that

 

[Rigby5]

" La Raza Sycophants "

* Out Of Your Criminal Mind *

But illegals pay taxes now, which is greater than what their heath care costs would be, anyway.

Prove it , rather than talking out your anti-racist racist ass .

https://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/USCostStudy_2010.pdf

at the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. at the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.

most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the u.s. treasury.

Illegal Aliens: National Net Cost Estimates Vary Widely

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the costs of providing benefits and services to illegal aliens, focusing on: (1) current estimates...

www.gao.gov

GAO found that: (1) illegal aliens in the United States generate more in costs than revenues to federal, state, and local governments combined; (2) estimates of the national net cost of illegal aliens vary greatly, ranging from $2 billion to $19 billion; (3) a great deal of uncertainty remains about the national fiscal impact of illegal aliens, because little data exists on illegal aliens' use of public services and tax payments;

Your taxpayer dollars are footing the spiraling costs of illegal immigration

Keep in mind that the costs due to illegal immigration well exceed the amount to build the wall.

thehill.com

One of the major drivers of the increasing costs is the 4.2 million children of migrants, who automatically become American citizens. Taxpayers are indeed on the hook for over $45 billion in state and federal education spending annually, not to mention the added burden of increased social welfare dollars. Much of the almost $30 billion in medical and assistance funding is sparked by the fact that noncitizen families in the United States are twice as likely to receive welfare payments than native born families.

Not true.
All illegals pay taxes, because even if they are using the SS number of someone else, they can't file and get a refund. No illegals can ever get refunds. If they tried, they would risk getting deported.
And while the children of illegals do get free schooling, it does not really cost us anything.
The flight of the wealthy to the suburbs has left the urban schools with a diminishing student enrollment, so no new buildings or classes are created by the illegals. They just bring the class size up to closer to normal.
Illegals do not get SNAP, subsided housing, or anything else.
Those who claim they cost us through law enforcement also are wrong, not only because they have about half the crime rate of citizens, but because law enforcement makes a profit off fines, bail, forfeitures, etc.
In fact, when you count the profit we make by selling illegals things like food, housing, clothing, transportation, etc., they are highly profitable to the whole economy.
They also do jobs we don't want, like animal processing, that bring down our food costs.
The only negative is they may compete for jobs and bring down how much we are paid.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

" La Raza Sycophants "

* Out Of Your Criminal Mind *

But illegals pay taxes now, which is greater than what their heath care costs would be, anyway.

Prove it , rather than talking out your anti-racist racist ass .

https://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/USCostStudy_2010.pdf

at the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. at the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.

most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the u.s. treasury.

Illegal Aliens: National Net Cost Estimates Vary Widely

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the costs of providing benefits and services to illegal aliens, focusing on: (1) current estimates...

www.gao.gov

GAO found that: (1) illegal aliens in the United States generate more in costs than revenues to federal, state, and local governments combined; (2) estimates of the national net cost of illegal aliens vary greatly, ranging from $2 billion to $19 billion; (3) a great deal of uncertainty remains about the national fiscal impact of illegal aliens, because little data exists on illegal aliens' use of public services and tax payments;

Your taxpayer dollars are footing the spiraling costs of illegal immigration

Keep in mind that the costs due to illegal immigration well exceed the amount to build the wall.

thehill.com

One of the major drivers of the increasing costs is the 4.2 million children of migrants, who automatically become American citizens. Taxpayers are indeed on the hook for over $45 billion in state and federal education spending annually, not to mention the added burden of increased social welfare dollars. Much of the almost $30 billion in medical and assistance funding is sparked by the fact that noncitizen families in the United States are twice as likely to receive welfare payments than native born families.

Not true.
All illegals pay taxes, because even if they are using the SS number of someone else, they can't file and get a refund. No illegals can ever get refunds. If they tried, they would risk getting deported.
And while the children of illegals do get free schooling, it does not really cost us anything.
The flight of the wealthy to the suburbs has left the urban schools with a diminishing student enrollment, so no new buildings or classes are created by the illegals. They just bring the class size up to closer to normal.
Illegals do not get SNAP, subsided housing, or anything else.
Those who claim they cost us through law enforcement also are wrong, not only because they have about half the crime rate of citizens, but because law enforcement makes a profit off fines, bail, forfeitures, etc.
In fact, when you count the profit we make by selling illegals things like food, housing, clothing, transportation, etc., they are highly profitable to the whole economy.
They also do jobs we don't want, like animal processing, that bring down our food costs.
The only negative is they may compete for jobs and bring down how much we are paid.

those illegals paying taxes are using a stolen social security number

 

[Rigby5]

BECAUSE blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866

Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union. The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.

Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.

Simply being born in the US confers citizenship. Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.

wrong snowflake not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion

The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.

Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.

A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.

The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn't

Not disagreeing that they did not get citizenship rights.
But I also agree with "danielp", that they should have had citizenship rights.
Their ancestors were taken as slaves and shipped her under the power of the crown, not US law.
And the whole point of the rebellion was a rejection of the arbitrary authority of the crown.
There really never was any ability under US law then for slavery to ever exist or for people born here to be slaves just because their parents or other ancestors had illegally been treated as slaves.
The founders really had no authority to allow slavery from British rule to continue.
I realize it was really a state issue back then.
But we really should not have needed a 14th amendment.
It should already have been intuitive.
Which is what I think "danielp" is saying.
That those born here should have been full US citizens, regardless of he status of their parents.

It's not about should've would've could've laws prevented it from happening laws deemed constitutional by the supreme court supported by their Dread Scott decision. Until the 14th amendment ratification and the creation of the civil rights act of 1866 that would've should've could've is moot.

Just saying that the SCOTUS had to be wrong.
The Dread Scott decision had to be wrong.
Which just shows how we still need more progressive reform, most likely.
And that is why I disagree with those who support Originalism, like Scalia.
The Founders did not get it all perfect, and we still need to fix some things that we always interpreted wrong.

 

[Rigby5]

" La Raza Sycophants "

* Out Of Your Criminal Mind *

But illegals pay taxes now, which is greater than what their heath care costs would be, anyway.

Prove it , rather than talking out your anti-racist racist ass .

https://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/USCostStudy_2010.pdf

at the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. at the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.

most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the u.s. treasury.

Illegal Aliens: National Net Cost Estimates Vary Widely

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the costs of providing benefits and services to illegal aliens, focusing on: (1) current estimates...

www.gao.gov

GAO found that: (1) illegal aliens in the United States generate more in costs than revenues to federal, state, and local governments combined; (2) estimates of the national net cost of illegal aliens vary greatly, ranging from $2 billion to $19 billion; (3) a great deal of uncertainty remains about the national fiscal impact of illegal aliens, because little data exists on illegal aliens' use of public services and tax payments;

Your taxpayer dollars are footing the spiraling costs of illegal immigration

Keep in mind that the costs due to illegal immigration well exceed the amount to build the wall.

thehill.com

One of the major drivers of the increasing costs is the 4.2 million children of migrants, who automatically become American citizens. Taxpayers are indeed on the hook for over $45 billion in state and federal education spending annually, not to mention the added burden of increased social welfare dollars. Much of the almost $30 billion in medical and assistance funding is sparked by the fact that noncitizen families in the United States are twice as likely to receive welfare payments than native born families.

Not true.
All illegals pay taxes, because even if they are using the SS number of someone else, they can't file and get a refund. No illegals can ever get refunds. If they tried, they would risk getting deported.
And while the children of illegals do get free schooling, it does not really cost us anything.
The flight of the wealthy to the suburbs has left the urban schools with a diminishing student enrollment, so no new buildings or classes are created by the illegals. They just bring the class size up to closer to normal.
Illegals do not get SNAP, subsided housing, or anything else.
Those who claim they cost us through law enforcement also are wrong, not only because they have about half the crime rate of citizens, but because law enforcement makes a profit off fines, bail, forfeitures, etc.
In fact, when you count the profit we make by selling illegals things like food, housing, clothing, transportation, etc., they are highly profitable to the whole economy.
They also do jobs we don't want, like animal processing, that bring down our food costs.
The only negative is they may compete for jobs and bring down how much we are paid.

those illegals paying taxes are using a stolen social security number

So?
They still pay taxes and can't risk getting refunds.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

BECAUSE blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866

Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union. The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.

Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.

Simply being born in the US confers citizenship. Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.

wrong snowflake not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion

The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.

Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.

A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.

The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn't

Not disagreeing that they did not get citizenship rights.
But I also agree with "danielp", that they should have had citizenship rights.
Their ancestors were taken as slaves and shipped her under the power of the crown, not US law.
And the whole point of the rebellion was a rejection of the arbitrary authority of the crown.
There really never was any ability under US law then for slavery to ever exist or for people born here to be slaves just because their parents or other ancestors had illegally been treated as slaves.
The founders really had no authority to allow slavery from British rule to continue.
I realize it was really a state issue back then.
But we really should not have needed a 14th amendment.
It should already have been intuitive.
Which is what I think "danielp" is saying.
That those born here should have been full US citizens, regardless of he status of their parents.

It's not about should've would've could've laws prevented it from happening laws deemed constitutional by the supreme court supported by their Dread Scott decision. Until the 14th amendment ratification and the creation of the civil rights act of 1866 that would've should've could've is moot.

Just saying that the SCOTUS had to be wrong.
The Dread Scott decision had to be wrong.
Which just shows how we still need more progressive reform, most likely.
And that is why I disagree with those who support Originalism, like Scalia.
The Founders did not get it all perfect, and we still need to fix some things that we always interpreted wrong.

shrugs again not would've should've could've what did the laws say at the time?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

" La Raza Sycophants "

* Out Of Your Criminal Mind *

But illegals pay taxes now, which is greater than what their heath care costs would be, anyway.

Prove it , rather than talking out your anti-racist racist ass .

https://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-08/USCostStudy_2010.pdf

at the federal level, about one-third of outlays are matched by tax collections from illegal aliens. at the state and local level, an average of less than 5 percent of the public costs associated with illegal immigration is recouped through taxes collected from illegal aliens.

most illegal aliens do not pay income taxes. among those who do, much of the revenues collected are refunded to the illegal aliens when they file tax returns. many are also claiming tax credits resulting in payments from the u.s. treasury.

Illegal Aliens: National Net Cost Estimates Vary Widely

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO examined the costs of providing benefits and services to illegal aliens, focusing on: (1) current estimates...

www.gao.gov

GAO found that: (1) illegal aliens in the United States generate more in costs than revenues to federal, state, and local governments combined; (2) estimates of the national net cost of illegal aliens vary greatly, ranging from $2 billion to $19 billion; (3) a great deal of uncertainty remains about the national fiscal impact of illegal aliens, because little data exists on illegal aliens' use of public services and tax payments;

Your taxpayer dollars are footing the spiraling costs of illegal immigration

Keep in mind that the costs due to illegal immigration well exceed the amount to build the wall.

thehill.com

One of the major drivers of the increasing costs is the 4.2 million children of migrants, who automatically become American citizens. Taxpayers are indeed on the hook for over $45 billion in state and federal education spending annually, not to mention the added burden of increased social welfare dollars. Much of the almost $30 billion in medical and assistance funding is sparked by the fact that noncitizen families in the United States are twice as likely to receive welfare payments than native born families.

Not true.
All illegals pay taxes, because even if they are using the SS number of someone else, they can't file and get a refund. No illegals can ever get refunds. If they tried, they would risk getting deported.
And while the children of illegals do get free schooling, it does not really cost us anything.
The flight of the wealthy to the suburbs has left the urban schools with a diminishing student enrollment, so no new buildings or classes are created by the illegals. They just bring the class size up to closer to normal.
Illegals do not get SNAP, subsided housing, or anything else.
Those who claim they cost us through law enforcement also are wrong, not only because they have about half the crime rate of citizens, but because law enforcement makes a profit off fines, bail, forfeitures, etc.
In fact, when you count the profit we make by selling illegals things like food, housing, clothing, transportation, etc., they are highly profitable to the whole economy.
They also do jobs we don't want, like animal processing, that bring down our food costs.
The only negative is they may compete for jobs and bring down how much we are paid.

those illegals paying taxes are using a stolen social security number

So?
They still pay taxes and can't risk getting refunds.

and here you were just harping about having rights that laws said slaves didn't have

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Typical Loathsome Idiocy "

* Pathetic Ignorance *

Not true.
All illegals pay taxes, because even if they are using the SS number of someone else, they can't file and get a refund. No illegals can ever get refunds. If they tried, they would risk getting deported.
And while the children of illegals do get free schooling, it does not really cost us anything.
The flight of the wealthy to the suburbs has left the urban schools with a diminishing student enrollment, so no new buildings or classes are created by the illegals. They just bring the class size up to closer to normal.
Illegals do not get SNAP, subsided housing, or anything else.
Those who claim they cost us through law enforcement also are wrong, not only because they have about half the crime rate of citizens, but because law enforcement makes a profit off fines, bail, forfeitures, etc.
In fact, when you count the profit we make by selling illegals things like food, housing, clothing, transportation, etc., they are highly profitable to the whole economy.
They also do jobs we don't want, like animal processing, that bring down our food costs.
The only negative is they may compete for jobs and bring down how much we are paid.

You are nothing more than a poorly informed , anti-racist racist , liar for thieves , reflective of disingenuous degeneracy exemplified by the entire left wing !

And ITIN filing only on themselves does not even cover the ssi doled out for the children of illegal migrants , who were unlawfully given citizenship , and based upon the income of their vagrant parents .

Front Page Featured | MRCTV

www.cnsnews.com

One of the most reliable sources of data concerning the federal income taxes of illegal immigrants comes from an IRS program that gives them “Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers” or ITINs. These numbers are “issued regardless of an individual’s immigration status,” and they allow illegal immigrants and foreign investors to file tax returns without a Social Security number.

In reality, the polar opposite is true. Federal government data shows that while roughly half of illegal immigrants file federal tax returns, the vast majority of them don’t pay any federal income taxes. Instead, they use these returns to claim refundable tax credits, which are a form of cash welfare. In other words, illegal immigrants mainly use the federal income tax code to collect money from U.S. citizens.

Why Undocumented Immigrants Choose to Pay Income Taxes

The IRS created a program in 1996 that allows non-citizens residing in the USA who are earning money to report their income. Most undocumented immigrants have decided it’s worth the risk to document themselves as law-abiding taxpayers so they will have good standing legally and socially if one...

fee.org

 

[AZrailwhale]

You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."

Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:

"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"

Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress

Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.

www.cbsnews.com

Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."

Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:


"Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
page 33.

Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional. Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.

no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional

Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.

• 1.“…history of laws against miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation—in the United States.
  
  Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with the Progressive movement, peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
  
  “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood.”
  Adolph Hitler
  Untitled Document
  
  
• 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
  
  
  
  3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
• “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”

Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats

• Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
  (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
• 
  
• 
  4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.
• The Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
  
  In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’

“Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”

Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats

Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.

www.breitbart.com

• 5. From the LATimes:
• “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices. Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly."
  When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes

Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them

I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.

Right wingers were democrats back then. Lincoln was a republican.

I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit

You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.

I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.

You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."






Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:

"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"

Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress

Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.

www.cbsnews.com

Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."

Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:


"Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
page 33.

Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional. Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.

no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional

Yes, they were unConstitutional. Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.

• Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.

A political five to four decision? Blacks were also created equal. And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception. They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization. The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.

irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.

all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.

irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.

no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats

More disingenuous white racist bullshit.

I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
My directive to you is go fuck your racist self

Fallacy is all right wingers usually have. If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.

You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacy

lol. Thanks for proving my point, right winger. No valid arguments just ad hominems is all you have.

Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Just because facts calls you a liar doesn't make them ad hominens

What facts are you claiming? Our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral, from Inception.

This is actually part of our supreme Law of the land:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Being legal to our express written supreme law of the land meant anyone (not just white persons) born in the US (after 1808) was automatically a US citizens; any extra Constitutional federal laws to the contrary not with Standing.

Repeating the same incorrect information over and over again doesn't make it true. Blacks, especially black slaves were not eligible to become citizens until the Thirteenth Amendment was passed. Black Americans didn't get the right to vote until the Fifteenth Amendment was passed in 1870 five years later.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."

Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:

"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"

Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress

Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.

www.cbsnews.com

Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."

Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:


"Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
page 33.

Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional. Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.

no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional

Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.

• 1.“…history of laws against miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation—in the United States.
  
  Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with the Progressive movement, peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
  
  “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood.”
  Adolph Hitler
  Untitled Document
  
  
• 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
  
  
  
  3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
• “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”

Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats

• Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
  (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
• 
  
• 
  4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.
• The Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
  
  In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’

“Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”

Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats

Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.

www.breitbart.com

• 5. From the LATimes:
• “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices. Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly."
  When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes

Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them

I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.

Right wingers were democrats back then. Lincoln was a republican.

I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit

You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.

I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.

You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."






Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:

"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"

Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress

Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.

www.cbsnews.com

Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."

Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:


"Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
page 33.

Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional. Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.

no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional

Yes, they were unConstitutional. Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.

• Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.

A political five to four decision? Blacks were also created equal. And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception. They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization. The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.

irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.

all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.

irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.

no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats

More disingenuous white racist bullshit.

I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
My directive to you is go fuck your racist self

Fallacy is all right wingers usually have. If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.

You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacy

lol. Thanks for proving my point, right winger. No valid arguments just ad hominems is all you have.

Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Just because facts calls you a liar doesn't make them ad hominens

What facts are you claiming? Our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral, from Inception.

This is actually part of our supreme Law of the land:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Being legal to our express written supreme law of the land meant anyone (not just white persons) born in the US (after 1808) was automatically a US citizens; any extra Constitutional federal laws to the contrary not with Standing.

Repeating the same incorrect information over and over again doesn't make it true. Blacks, especially black slaves were not eligible to become citizens until the Thirteenth Amendment was passed. Black Americans didn't get the right to vote until the Fifteenth Amendment was passed in 1870 five years later.

he's repeated the same old shit like textbook work
Regardless of the facts presented to him.

 

[AZrailwhale]

You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."

Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:

"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"

Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress

Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.

www.cbsnews.com

Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."

Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:


"Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
page 33.

Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional. Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.

no they were unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional

Perhaps this would be an appropriate time to point out that Hitler's Nazis proudly proclaimed that they based their laws on the Democrat Jim Crow laws.

• 1.“…history of laws against miscegenation—interracial marriage or procreation—in the United States.
  
  Under the influence of Darwinism, racial science and an associated eugenics movement emerged in the late nineteenth century, grew with the Progressive movement, peaked in the 1920s, and disappeared during World War II. (Its enthusiastic embrace by Hitler did not help it…” The Race Against Race
  
  “The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood.”
  Adolph Hitler
  Untitled Document
  
  
• 2. “At Nuremberg, the Nazis sought to preserve Nordic racial purity by outlawing racial intermarriage with Jews in much the same manner that Democratic anti-miscegenation laws outlawed racial intermarriage with blacks.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats
  
  
  
  3. Guess were Adolph got the idea for sterilization of ‘undesireables’???
• “…Hitler learned from progressive sterilization laws that had been enacted in America through the influence of activists like Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. “I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would in all probability be of no value or be injurious to the racial stock.”

Hitler’s views—which closely parallel Sanger’s—provided the basis for the Nazi sterilization laws of 1933 which began by targeting “imbeciles” and the mentally retarded, and later expanded to cover Jews, gypsies, and other social undesirables.” Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats

• Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his “The Case for Sterilization.”
  (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization)
• 
  
• 
  4. German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.
• The Nazi Nuremberg Laws were taken nearly wholly from the Jim Crow Laws of the Democrat controlled South.
  
  In “Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law ,” by James Whitman, he shows how the Nazis took the Democrats’ Jim Crow Laws, simply changed the word ‘black’ and inserted the word ‘Jew.’

“Let’s remember that every segregation law in the South was passed by a Democratic legislature, signed by a Democratic governor, and enforced by Democratic officials. The Nuremberg team carefully studied these laws that were mainly aimed at blacks and used them to formulate their own racist legislation mainly aimed at Jews.”

Dinesh D’Souza: What Hitler Learned from the Democrats

Hitler learned some of his core policy strategies from the Democrats and American progressives. Progressives of the time recognized this and were proud of it.

www.breitbart.com

• 5. From the LATimes:
• “At a crucial 1934 planning meeting for the Nuremberg system, the Minister of Justice presented a memorandum on American law. According to a transcript, he led a detailed discussion of miscegenation statutes from all over the United States. Moreover it is clear that the most radical Nazis were the most eager advocates of American practices. Roland Freisler, who would become president of the Nazi People's Court, declared that American jurisprudence "would suit us perfectly."
  When the Nazis wrote the Nuremberg laws, they looked to racist American statutes

Just correcting his wrong answer at the time Jim crow laws were constitutional not defending them

I was simply pointing out that, like every totalitarian religion, the Nazis paid homage to the Democrat Party.

Right wingers were democrats back then. Lincoln was a republican.

I'm not a right winger I'm a Republican you're a lying sack of shit

You have nothing but right wing propaganda and rhetoric.

I have historical relevance to support what I have said you have nothing
Blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

Only because it takes morals to faithfully execute our supreme Law of the land.

You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."






Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:

"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"

Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress

Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.

www.cbsnews.com

Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."

Just came upon this quote from David Baldacci's novel, 'The Guilty,' indicating what would have been the result without the 3/5 compromise:


"Blacks had constituted the majority of the population [of Mississippi] until the commencement of two mass migrations, first north and then west over the course of sixty years starting in 1910. The exodus was largely to get away from the oppressive effects of Jim Crow laws....."
page 33.

Jim Crow laws were unConstitutional. Right wingers simply don't care about natural rights or the Law, unlike what they allege in abortion or socialism threads.

no, they weren't unconstitutional when they were written you right wingers are delusional

Yes, they were unConstitutional. Right wingers are simply hypocrites when they complain others don't, obey the laws.

• Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court in which the Court held that the US Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for black people, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them.

A political five to four decision? Blacks were also created equal. And our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral from Inception. They were born in the US and must have been citizens after 1808 since the States no longer had any authority over immigration or naturalization. The worst that should have happened was that blacks were naturalized if they were free or after emancipation.

irrelevant blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

Our Civil War should have never happened over slavery.

all irrelevant wishful thinking blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

Civil war is worse than riots; thanks for letting us know you have no problem with that.

irrelevant banther ^^^^^^^^
What is relevant vvvvvvvvvv
Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

All it took the whole and entire time, was morals.

no, it took taking slaves away from you democrats

More disingenuous white racist bullshit.

I dictate to racists like you I do not have a discussions
My directive to you is go fuck your racist self

Fallacy is all right wingers usually have. If it weren't for fallacy, right wingers would have no arguments at all, or so it usually seems.

You've been nothing but a dribbling pile of fallacy

lol. Thanks for proving my point, right winger. No valid arguments just ad hominems is all you have.

Then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Just because facts calls you a liar doesn't make them ad hominens

Except you didn't have the facts son.

On March 26, 1790, the United States of America decided who could be a citizen of this country for the first time. This was a congressional decision named The Naturalization Act of 1790. The act states: “any alien, being a free white person,” could apply for citizenship, so long as he or she lived in the United States for at least two years, and in the state where the application was filed for at least a year. The new law also provided that “children of citizens of the United States that may be born … out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Please notice the first 7 words. Only whites were entitled to be citizens of this country. Never mind the Native American nations already here. Blacks could forget about it.

You dumb son of a bitch that's what I have said the whole fucking thread Slaves and blacks did not have citizenship rights until the civil rights act of 1866

They were supposed to. This is the actual law right wingers were being unfaithful to:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Except black slaves weren't citizens, legally they were PROPERTY like a horse or a cow.

 

[AZrailwhale]

BECAUSE blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866

Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union. The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.

Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't. Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.

 

[AZrailwhale]

BECAUSE blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866

Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union. The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.

Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.

Simply being born in the US confers citizenship. Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.

Tell that to the states that became the Confederacy, not to us. You can claim anything you want, the reality was something different.

 

[Persistence Of Memory]

You know how the lying propagandists love to claim that the Founders didn't acknowledge the humanity of the slaves, and counted them as only 3/5 of a person for the census?

Of course, the truth is that the anti-slavers knew that the slave owners wanted to use the numbers to increase their political power in the Congress, and the abolitionists knew that if they did, slavery would never be abolished. So....the 3/5 compromise to get the union formed.



"Just three years after ratification, in the census of 1790, the numbers were determined according to the Constitution proscription of “adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years…three-fifths of all other Persons.”

Rather than this representing racial animus, this compromise prevented the South from having the representation to always outvote the North on the issue of slavery.

In 1790, the slave population of South Carolina was 77% of the white population. By 1820, slaves outnumbered whites, 265,000 to 237,000, and by 1860, 412,000 to 291,000. Georgia and Virginia, similarly."
Full text of "Heads of families at the first census of the United States taken in the year 1790 .."






Well......the Democrats are using the same plan, but now that they own the judiciary, they get their way:

"Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress"

Judges halt plan to exclude unauthorized immigrants from count used to award seats in Congress

Since the first census was taken, the U.S. has counted non-citizens for the purposes of awarding seats in the House of Representatives.

www.cbsnews.com

Why was it necessary......Obama just told them to go and vote: "When you vote, you're a citizen yourself."

The biggest mistake in our country's history was that we should have been picking our own GD F cotton.

 

[Billiejeens]

There is no immigration clause in our federal Constitution and we should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass.

You are right.
We shouldn't have an illegal problem.
Thats why we are building the wall, and deporting those that shouldn't be here.

 

[danielpalos]

BECAUSE blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866

Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union. The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.

Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.

Simply being born in the US confers citizenship. Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.

wrong snowflake not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion

The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.

Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.

A general principle of law is that of blind justice, where you have to establish a generic principle to support the legislation.
When you specify races, you are inherently violating that basic legal principle, and then you must be trying to codify an illegal, arbitrary, dictate.
But since the SCOTUS disagreed until after the 14th amendment, the point is moot.

The point is that dumbass said anyone born in America after 1808 had citizenship rights they didn't

They Should have had the same privileges and immunities of any other natural born person in the US, they didn't and that was an ethical and moral failure; and having "under God" in our pledge makes it also a hypocritical practice.

 

[danielpalos]

BECAUSE blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866

Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union. The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.

Your confusing freeing slaves to getting citizenship rights. Being free and ending slavery did not mean they were given citizenship rights.

Simply being born in the US confers citizenship. Those laws were unConstitutional after 1808.

wrong snowflake not before 1865You have no constitutional basis to support your opinion

The Constitutional basis was simply being naturally born under US jurisdiction after 1808.

Nope show me the act or law or court ruling that did this.

Our Constitution is our supreme law of the land; no federal law was required and those federal laws which contradicted our federal Constitution were null and void in any conflict of laws with our supreme law of the land. Morals is all that was required.

and you are still wrong!
why was their a need for the 13th amendment 14th amendment?
The civil rights act of 1866?

For the same reason we have the Expense of Government instead of being moral enough to obey Ten simple Commandments from God.

Why did the South not insist on Eminent Domain to avoid our Civil War?

 

[danielpalos]

The people who wanted to count the slaves were their masters who wanted to keep them enslaved.

The people who want to count the illegals are the white people who want to keep them in the gray market of illegal work.

Both sets of people being Democrats. That tells you they haven't changed their mindset; they've just expanded their field of targets.

The South used to vote democrat until the civil rights acts.

not true

I gainsay your contention, want to argue about it?

I've shot you down every single time but you just keep on ignorantly spewing the same old lie

You have nothing but ignorance.

says the idiot who think slaves had rights before 1866
old danny boy calls himself a federalist? lol
The party drew its early support from those who—for ideological and other reasons—wished to strengthen national instead of state power. Until its defeat in the presidential election of 1800, its style was elitist, and its leaders scorned democracy, widespread suffrage, and open elections. Its backing centered in the commercial Northeast, whose economy and public order had been threatened by the failings of the Confederation government before 1788. Although the party enjoyed considerable influence in Virginia, North Carolina and the area around Charleston, South Carolina, it failed to attract plantation owners and yeoman farmers in the South and West. Its inability to broaden its geographic and social appeal eventually did it in.

Federalist Party: Leaders, Beliefs & Definition | HISTORY

The Federalist Party was an early U.S. political party that fought for a strong federal government. Supporters included John Adams, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay.

www.history.com

Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth. The several States no longer had jurisdiction over immigration after that.

Show us what law made blacks non-citizens after 1808.

I want you to show me were the immigration act of 1790 was amended and changed before 1808
FYI Dred Scott v. Sandford, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 6, 1857, declared that Black people, whether free or enslaved, could not be American citizens and were thus constitutionally unable to sue for citizenship in the federal courts.

OH and danny boy you calling yourself a federalist means you are anti-democracy a part of the elitist class and wide spread suffrage and free elections

Anyone born in the US after 1808 was a citizen by birth; our federal Constitution was both gender and race neutral. Any race based laws should have been unConstitutional and null and void from Inception; but that would have required more morals than were available at the time, apparently.

NOPE WRONG AGAIN THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866

Before 1800, free African American men had nominal rights of citizenship. In some places they could vote, serve on juries, and work in skilled trades. But as the need to justify slavery grew stronger, and racism started solidifying, free blacks gradually lost the rights that they did have. Through intimidation, changing laws and mob violence, whites claimed racial supremacy, and increasingly denied blacks their citizenship. And in 1857 the Dred Scott decision formally declared that blacks were not citizens of the United States.--https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2957.html