Their discussion has no bearing on the words that were ratified by the states. They could have talked until they blue in the face that the moon was made of green cheese, but they didn't put that in the amendment, did they?
Illegals weren’t mentioned because they didn’t really exist in the 1860s. The 2nd Ammendment doesn’t explicitly mention automatic weapons and yet we can’t have them. Interpretations of 160+ year old documents must be revisited on occasion.
Illegals weren’t mentioned because they didn’t really exist in the 1860s. The 2nd Ammendment doesn’t explicitly mention automatic weapons and yet we can’t have them. Interpretations of 160+ year old documents must be revisited on occasion.
I will ask again. Why do you want vacationers and children born to illegals who snuck across our border to be citizens? If we had to amend the 14th in exclude those born from illegals, why would so many on the left be opposed to doing so? That is what I don’t understand.
I will ask again. Why do you want vacationers and children born to illegals who snuck across our border to be citizens? If we had to amend the 14th in exclude those born from illegals, why would so many on the left be opposed to doing so? That is what I don’t understand.
It has noting to do with hating immigrants.. It has to do with protecting our sovereignty. My wife is an immigrant, but a legal one. Why would you be ok with anyone just walking across our border unchecked?
If we had to amend the 14th in exclude those born from illegals, why would so many on the left be opposed to doing so? That is what I don’t understand.
Illegals weren’t mentioned because they didn’t really exist in the 1860s. The 2nd Ammendment doesn’t explicitly mention automatic weapons and yet we can’t have them. Interpretations of 160+ year old documents must be revisited on occasion.
Correct. They must be amended when revisited, not reinterpreted. Like most people, I have no problem with passing an amendment to clarify citizenship. I just believe the wording as it stands is perfectly clear, despite opinions to the contrary.
It has noting to do with hating immigrants.. It has to do with protecting our sovereignty. My wife is an immigrant, but a legal one. Why would you be ok with anyone just walking across our border unchecked?
It has noting to do with hating immigrants.. It has to do with protecting our sovereignty. My wife is an immigrant, but a legal one. Why would you be ok with anyone just walking across our border unchecked?
Wrong on Wong.
You see, there was no such thing as a 'legal resident alien' at that time...or, more to the point, no such thing as an illegal alien--unless, of course, you were Chinese.
The distinction twixt legal and illegal did not exist--unless you were an Asian ..there were no passports, no green cards and very few rules in 1898.
Not to mention that Wong was Chinese...and his parents probably were illegal..under the Chinese Exclusion Act.
I will ask again. Why do you want vacationers and children born to illegals who snuck across our border to be citizens? If we had to amend the 14th in exclude those born from illegals, why would so many on the left be opposed to doing so? That is what I don’t understand.
Of course it does. If a pregnant woman walks across our border and has a baby that baby is a citizen. If a pregnant lady flies here on vacation and has a baby, that baby is a citizen. That was not the original intent.
Why can't we have automatic weapons? They were never explicitly excluded in the Second Amendment
Of course it does. If a pregnant woman walks across our border and has a baby that baby is a citizen. If a pregnant lady flies here on vacation and has a baby, that baby is a citizen. That was not the original intent.
Why can't we have automatic weapons? They were never explicitly excluded in the Second Amendment
I addressed the first part in my comment which you obviously did not read. I said, "It is a long term after effect." The mother doesn't become a citizen.
As for automatic weapons, you can have them legally. You just have to jump through hoops. Didn't you know that?
Illegals weren’t mentioned because they didn’t really exist in the 1860s. The 2nd Ammendment doesn’t explicitly mention automatic weapons and yet we can’t have them. Interpretations of 160+ year old documents must be revisited on occasion.
Their discussion has no bearing on the words that were ratified by the states. They could have talked until they blue in the face that the moon was made of green cheese, but they didn't put that in the amendment, did they?
The correct and accurate description is that the parents of kim wong ark were subjects by title in us legal immigration system and they were therefore subjects of us jurisdiction .
Any within the domain of authority , by us magistrates , are subject to us jurisdiction , however unless an individual is a subject by title in us legal immigration system , or has negotiated an exception from prosecution as a diplomat via us legal immigration system , then the individual would not be a subject OF us jurisdiction .
The sub-genius level of understanding for the term " thereof " in us 14th amendment is despicable .
