Defund Sanc Cities and Stop Anchor Baby Law....now!!

[theDoctorisIn]

Good luck on the Birthright (you'll need a Constitutional amendment).

And enjoy crime going up (because people won't talk to the police). It will be terrific for the black market.

(you'll need a Constitutional amendment).

No, you'll need a SCOTUS ruling on a Constitutional Amendment.

SCOTUS has already ruled on birthright citizenship, repeatedly.

as has Roe v Wade.

and it still comes up

A challenge to the core issues of Roe has never been accepted by SCOTUS.

Jus Soli is pretty explicit in the Constitution.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Good luck on the Birthright (you'll need a Constitutional amendment).

Nope. The practice of birthright citizenship is entirely a convention. Trump could end it tomorrow with an executive order.

No, the President doesn't have the power to unilaterally overturn the Constitution and 200 years of SCOTUS precedence.

It's the law, not a "convention".

Nope. The relevant part of the Fourteenth Amendment reads "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the...etc. "

Under the jurisdiction thereof goes back to English Common Law and generally means something like "who can compel you to go to war". The United States government can compel me to fight, but not a Canadian who is on this side of the border shopping. He isn't under the jurisdiction, even if he gives birth.

The question has not been decided repeatedly. There are some dicta cases, or whatever that's called, but everything hangs on the Wong Kim Ark case from back around the time of the Chinese Exclusion Acts. First off, it was a monumentally stupid ruling, the dissent blows it out of the water, but secondly the case was not typical for what we see today. In that case Wong Kim Ark's parents immigrated legally to the United States and made the US their permanent home. Their kid, Kim Ark, was born here, but then, as a young man, decided he wanted to return to the motherland. When that didn't work out, he moved back to the US, but in the time that he was gone, the Chinese Exclusion Acts were passed and so he was prevented from entering. He sued, and eventually the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that his parents were under the jurisdiction of the United States when they had their kid and, therefore, he was a citizen.

That's the ruling you claim gives illegal aliens, birth tourists, and god knows what all automatic citizenship.

You're right about exactly one thing: "under the jurisdiction of" does go back to English Common Law. But it means "subject to the laws of", nothing at all about ability to be conscripted.

As for Wong Kim Ark, it's never been challenged again by SCOTUS because they've refused to hear any challenges to his soli. Just like every other precedent case, the specifics of it are entirely beside the point.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Trump: 'Many' scholars say 'anchor babies' aren't covered by Constitution

"Today, this clause is widely understood to mean that the Constitution requires that everyone born on U.S. soil -- regardless of parents’ citizenship -- is automatically an American citizen. We polled a number of experts in immigration law, and each one told us that this is the mainstream view among legal scholars, without question.

The matter is not considered 100 percent settled, though. For one, the clause doesn’t directly address illegal immigration. Also, the Supreme Court has never made a specific ruling about a person born to undocumented parents."

It doesn't directly address illegal immigration or "undocumented parents" because those concepts didn't exist when the Constitution was written.

 

[cnelsen]

Good luck on the Birthright (you'll need a Constitutional amendment).

Nope. The practice of birthright citizenship is entirely a convention. Trump could end it tomorrow with an executive order.

No, the President doesn't have the power to unilaterally overturn the Constitution and 200 years of SCOTUS precedence.

It's the law, not a "convention".

Nope. The relevant part of the Fourteenth Amendment reads "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the...etc. "

Under the jurisdiction thereof goes back to English Common Law and generally means something like "who can compel you to go to war". The United States government can compel me to fight, but not a Canadian who is on this side of the border shopping. He isn't under the jurisdiction, even if he gives birth.

The question has not been decided repeatedly. There are some dicta cases, or whatever that's called, but everything hangs on the Wong Kim Ark case from back around the time of the Chinese Exclusion Acts. First off, it was a monumentally stupid ruling, the dissent blows it out of the water, but secondly the case was not typical for what we see today. In that case Wong Kim Ark's parents immigrated legally to the United States and made the US their permanent home. Their kid, Kim Ark, was born here, but then, as a young man, decided he wanted to return to the motherland. When that didn't work out, he moved back to the US, but in the time that he was gone, the Chinese Exclusion Acts were passed and so he was prevented from entering. He sued, and eventually the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that his parents were under the jurisdiction of the United States when they had their kid and, therefore, he was a citizen.

That's the ruling you claim gives illegal aliens, birth tourists, and god knows what all automatic citizenship.

You're right about exactly one thing: "under the jurisdiction of" does go back to English Common Law. But it means "subject to the laws of", nothing at all about ability to be conscripted.

As for Wong Kim Ark, it's never been challenged again by SCOTUS because they've refused to hear any challenges to his soli. Just like every other precedent case, the specifics of it are entirely beside the point.

The ambassador from Great Britain must obey our laws when in this country--he has to drive on the proper side of the road, for example. He can't shoplift. But if his wife gives birth here in DC, she doesn't give birth to an American, she gives birth to a Brit because the parents are "subject to"--are subjects of--Great Britain. In any case, it's not up to the Supreme Court to challenge anything, and no one needs to relitigate a one hundred and fifty year old case. A new case will decide the question, and going to legislative intent, the Senate debates on the passage of the amendment make it exceedingly clear there was no intent to grant citizenship to the offspring of non-citizens who happened to be born here. And, of course, the specifics matter a great deal if one is trying to apply a ruling to a set of circumstances.

But what I don't get is why you people are so radical in your legalistic insistence the white Christian majority in this country be swamped and as defeated as the Sioux. Why make yourselves an enemy of your own countrymen? Just do not get that.

 

[SavannahMann]

Good luck on the Birthright (you'll need a Constitutional amendment).

Nope. The practice of birthright citizenship is entirely a convention. Trump could end it tomorrow with an executive order.

I guess they didn't cover the 14th Amendment when you were in school.

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

I'm afraid it takes more than a wave of the magic pen in Trumps hand to get rid of an Amendment.

 

[Chuz Life]

I would like to see the the 14th Amendment "amended" to add just one word.

I would change; "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." to say;

"All persons LEGALLY 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."

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Good luck on the Birthright (you'll need a Constitutional amendment).

Nope. The practice of birthright citizenship is entirely a convention. Trump could end it tomorrow with an executive order.

No, the President doesn't have the power to unilaterally overturn the Constitution and 200 years of SCOTUS precedence.

It's the law, not a "convention".

Nope. The relevant part of the Fourteenth Amendment reads "All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the...etc. "

Under the jurisdiction thereof goes back to English Common Law and generally means something like "who can compel you to go to war". The United States government can compel me to fight, but not a Canadian who is on this side of the border shopping. He isn't under the jurisdiction, even if he gives birth.

The question has not been decided repeatedly. There are some dicta cases, or whatever that's called, but everything hangs on the Wong Kim Ark case from back around the time of the Chinese Exclusion Acts. First off, it was a monumentally stupid ruling, the dissent blows it out of the water, but secondly the case was not typical for what we see today. In that case Wong Kim Ark's parents immigrated legally to the United States and made the US their permanent home. Their kid, Kim Ark, was born here, but then, as a young man, decided he wanted to return to the motherland. When that didn't work out, he moved back to the US, but in the time that he was gone, the Chinese Exclusion Acts were passed and so he was prevented from entering. He sued, and eventually the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, holding that his parents were under the jurisdiction of the United States when they had their kid and, therefore, he was a citizen.

That's the ruling you claim gives illegal aliens, birth tourists, and god knows what all automatic citizenship.

You're right about exactly one thing: "under the jurisdiction of" does go back to English Common Law. But it means "subject to the laws of", nothing at all about ability to be conscripted.

As for Wong Kim Ark, it's never been challenged again by SCOTUS because they've refused to hear any challenges to his soli. Just like every other precedent case, the specifics of it are entirely beside the point.

The ambassador from Great Britain must obey our laws when in this country--he has to drive on the proper side of the road, for example. He can't shoplift. But if his wife gives birth here in DC, she doesn't give birth to an American, she gives birth to a Brit because the parents are "subject to"--are subjects of--Great Britain. In any case, it's not up to the Supreme Court to challenge anything, and no one needs to relitigate a one hundred and fifty year old case. A new case will decide the question, and going to legislative intent, the Senate debates on the passage of the amendment make it exceedingly clear there was no intent to grant citizenship to the offspring of non-citizens who happened to be born here. And, of course, the specifics matter a great deal if one is trying to apply a ruling to a set of circumstances.

But what I don't get is why you people are so radical in your legalistic insistence the white Christian majority in this country be swamped and as defeated as the Sioux. Why make yourselves an enemy of your own countrymen? Just do not get that.

I don't expect that you paid attention in civics class, but I would have guessed that you'd at least have seen Leathal Weapon 2.

 

[cnelsen]

Good luck on the Birthright (you'll need a Constitutional amendment).

Nope. The practice of birthright citizenship is entirely a convention. Trump could end it tomorrow with an executive order.

I guess they didn't cover the 14th Amendment when you were in school.

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

I'm afraid it takes more than a wave of the magic pen in Trumps hand to get rid of an Amendment.

Apparently, they didn't in my school. At least, the way they did in your school, where, apparently, you were taught the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means the same thing as "born in the United States". Did the Senate think the Amendment had a better cadence by saying the same thing twice? I think I'll skip your school and go with the senator who actually inserted the "subject to the jurisdiction" language into the amendment specifically to make it clear the amendment did NOT include illegals, and so on. "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." --Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan

Maybe your school will give you a refund on account of your ignorance?

 

[SavannahMann]

Good luck on the Birthright (you'll need a Constitutional amendment).

Nope. The practice of birthright citizenship is entirely a convention. Trump could end it tomorrow with an executive order.

I guess they didn't cover the 14th Amendment when you were in school.

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

I'm afraid it takes more than a wave of the magic pen in Trumps hand to get rid of an Amendment.

Apparently, they didn't in my school. At least, the way they did in your school, where, apparently, you were taught the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means the same thing as "born in the United States". Did the Senate think the Amendment had a better cadence by saying the same thing twice? I think I'll skip your school and go with the senator who actually inserted the "subject to the jurisdiction" language into the amendment specifically to make it clear the amendment did NOT include illegals, and so on. "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." --Senator Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan

Maybe your school will give you a refund on account of your ignorance?

That may have been the Senators intent. However the language does not make that interpretation absolute. Worse it is not the Senator alone who voted to pass it. Additionally the states that ratified it and thus made it an amendment could have objected and voted no. But they went with that text.

The fourth amendment does not have any exceptions listed like probable cause or reasonable suspicion. It says that you will be secure from search in your person and papers except as authorized by a warrant. Yet we have found many exceptions to this since it was ratified.

At the time the Second was ratified and for a good long time afterwards a private citizen could buy cannon. Anyone could buy Military grade weapons. In time we decided that there were implied restrictions. So I can't buy a naval cannon, nor artillery without specific permission from the government. Forget state of the art.

At the time the 14th was ratified, we were expanding as a nation. Rapidly. We had a whole continent to occupy. Hundreds of thousands of people were headed west. I have every reason to believe that many who supported the 14th did so to expand the population of the nation, the Senators intent not withstanding.

Isn't it reasonable to assume that the congressmen who represented the districts where immigrants tended to settle would want to keep that district of a size?

The amendment allowed rapid Americanization of the immigrants. This was an important factor in the First World War when Germany expected an uprising of German immigrants. Sadly for Foreign Minister Zimmerman the German-Americans were more American than German in their minds.

 

[RightyTighty]

Good luck on the Birthright (you'll need a Constitutional amendment).

Nope. The practice of birthright citizenship is entirely a convention. Trump could end it tomorrow with an executive order.

No, the President doesn't have the power to unilaterally overturn the Constitution and 200 years of SCOTUS precedence.

It's the law, not a "convention".

Maye he thinks all the past Presidents were just being nice?

What is it about you people who are so eager to see harmful immigration policy continue against the will of the majority of your fellow Americans?

People fleeing persecution (and looking for a better life here) aren't hurting - that is America.

 

[RightyTighty]

Trump: 'Many' scholars say 'anchor babies' aren't covered by Constitution

"Today, this clause is widely understood to mean that the Constitution requires that everyone born on U.S. soil -- regardless of parents’ citizenship -- is automatically an American citizen. We polled a number of experts in immigration law, and each one told us that this is the mainstream view among legal scholars, without question.

The matter is not considered 100 percent settled, though. For one, the clause doesn’t directly address illegal immigration. Also, the Supreme Court has never made a specific ruling about a person born to undocumented parents."

Not everyone - just the vast majority.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Good luck on the Birthright (you'll need a Constitutional amendment).

And enjoy crime going up (because people won't talk to the police). It will be terrific for the black market.

And enjoy crime going up (because people won't talk to the police). It will be terrific for the black market.

Mexicans don't talk to the police anyways

Now they really don't. Who can blame them.

I'm so confused by this comment...is this the new spin we're running with? Sanctuary cities should protect their illegals to preserve their participation in reporting crime?
Let me break this down for:
The average Hispanic family in CA looks like this:
Carlos and Guadalupe have 4-6 children born in the U.S. all attending public schools. Carlos works for $10 dollars an hour and averages 50 hours per week, Carlos grosses $500 per week in income.
Guadalupe is a stay at home mother.
The cost to attend a public school in CA is $10,600 per year per child. The cost of child birth in CA is $10,000. Carlos and Guadalupe get housing assistance, EBT, welfare, health coverage...etc etc all compliments of hard working real American taxpayers. I won't list all the other direct and indirect expenses related to Carlos' family as it would be retarded and a waste of time.
Do your own math and PLEASE explain to me how Carlos and Guadalupe are helping Americans and this country enough to justify keeping them around JUST IN CASE they witness a crime?
Come on man...is that really the best bunch of fabricated bullshit your people can come up with...haha
Libtards-
"We think it makes perfect sense to pay a family of seven 90k-ish per year to be a watch-dog JUST IN CASE they witness a crime."
LOL...Only in Libtardo Land

 

[RightyTighty]

Good luck on the Birthright (you'll need a Constitutional amendment).

And enjoy crime going up (because people won't talk to the police). It will be terrific for the black market.

And enjoy crime going up (because people won't talk to the police). It will be terrific for the black market.

Mexicans don't talk to the police anyways

Now they really don't. Who can blame them.

I'm so confused by this comment...is this the new spin we're running with? Sanctuary cities should protect their illegals to preserve their participation in reporting crime?
Let me break this down for:
The average Hispanic family in CA looks like this:
Carlos and Guadalupe have 4-6 children born in the U.S. all attending public schools. Carlos works for $10 dollars an hour and averages 50 hours per week, Carlos grosses $500 per week in income.
Guadalupe is a stay at home mother.
The cost to attend a public school in CA is $10,600 per year per child. The cost of child birth in CA is $10,000. Carlos and Guadalupe get housing assistance, EBT, welfare, health coverage...etc etc all compliments of hard working real American taxpayers. I won't list all the other direct and indirect expenses related to Carlos' family as it would be retarded and a waste of time.
Do your own math and PLEASE explain to me how Carlos and Guadalupe are helping Americans and this country enough to justify keeping them around JUST IN CASE they witness a crime?
Come on man...is that really the best bunch of fabricated bullshit your people can come up with...haha
Libtards-
"We think it makes perfect sense to pay a family of seven 90k-ish per year to be a watch-dog JUST IN CASE they witness a crime."
LOL...Only in Libtardo Land

Ask the police why they like Sanctuary City policies - it starts with the fact non-citizens will cooperate with the police.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Good luck on the Birthright (you'll need a Constitutional amendment).

And enjoy crime going up (because people won't talk to the police). It will be terrific for the black market.

And enjoy crime going up (because people won't talk to the police). It will be terrific for the black market.

Mexicans don't talk to the police anyways

Now they really don't. Who can blame them.

I'm so confused by this comment...is this the new spin we're running with? Sanctuary cities should protect their illegals to preserve their participation in reporting crime?
Let me break this down for:
The average Hispanic family in CA looks like this:
Carlos and Guadalupe have 4-6 children born in the U.S. all attending public schools. Carlos works for $10 dollars an hour and averages 50 hours per week, Carlos grosses $500 per week in income.
Guadalupe is a stay at home mother.
The cost to attend a public school in CA is $10,600 per year per child. The cost of child birth in CA is $10,000. Carlos and Guadalupe get housing assistance, EBT, welfare, health coverage...etc etc all compliments of hard working real American taxpayers. I won't list all the other direct and indirect expenses related to Carlos' family as it would be retarded and a waste of time.
Do your own math and PLEASE explain to me how Carlos and Guadalupe are helping Americans and this country enough to justify keeping them around JUST IN CASE they witness a crime?
Come on man...is that really the best bunch of fabricated bullshit your people can come up with...haha
Libtards-
"We think it makes perfect sense to pay a family of seven 90k-ish per year to be a watch-dog JUST IN CASE they witness a crime."
LOL...Only in Libtardo Land

Ask the police why they like Sanctuary City policies - it starts with the fact non-citizens will cooperate with the police.

Haha...that's such bullshit. I have a number of friends in law enforcement here in LA and Orange County...all of them are flat out embarrassed that law makers refuse to enforce the law set forth by the will of the people.
Maybe your talking with officers here by illegal descent?
Any chance I can get my 90k per year to be on stand by and report a crime I may be witness to one day?

 

[cnelsen]

Good luck on the Birthright (you'll need a Constitutional amendment).

Nope. The practice of birthright citizenship is entirely a convention. Trump could end it tomorrow with an executive order.

No, the President doesn't have the power to unilaterally overturn the Constitution and 200 years of SCOTUS precedence.

It's the law, not a "convention".

Maye he thinks all the past Presidents were just being nice?

What is it about you people who are so eager to see harmful immigration policy continue against the will of the majority of your fellow Americans?

People fleeing persecution (and looking for a better life here) aren't hurting - that is America.

How many? All of them? How long? Forever? No matter what? Who gets to decide? Them and their desires? or us and ours?

 

[RightyTighty]

Good luck on the Birthright (you'll need a Constitutional amendment).

And enjoy crime going up (because people won't talk to the police). It will be terrific for the black market.

And enjoy crime going up (because people won't talk to the police). It will be terrific for the black market.

Mexicans don't talk to the police anyways

Now they really don't. Who can blame them.

I'm so confused by this comment...is this the new spin we're running with? Sanctuary cities should protect their illegals to preserve their participation in reporting crime?
Let me break this down for:
The average Hispanic family in CA looks like this:
Carlos and Guadalupe have 4-6 children born in the U.S. all attending public schools. Carlos works for $10 dollars an hour and averages 50 hours per week, Carlos grosses $500 per week in income.
Guadalupe is a stay at home mother.
The cost to attend a public school in CA is $10,600 per year per child. The cost of child birth in CA is $10,000. Carlos and Guadalupe get housing assistance, EBT, welfare, health coverage...etc etc all compliments of hard working real American taxpayers. I won't list all the other direct and indirect expenses related to Carlos' family as it would be retarded and a waste of time.
Do your own math and PLEASE explain to me how Carlos and Guadalupe are helping Americans and this country enough to justify keeping them around JUST IN CASE they witness a crime?
Come on man...is that really the best bunch of fabricated bullshit your people can come up with...haha
Libtards-
"We think it makes perfect sense to pay a family of seven 90k-ish per year to be a watch-dog JUST IN CASE they witness a crime."
LOL...Only in Libtardo Land

Ask the police why they like Sanctuary City policies - it starts with the fact non-citizens will cooperate with the police.

Haha...that's such bullshit. I have a number of friends in law enforcement here in LA and Orange County...all of them are flat out embarrassed that law makers refuse to enforce the law set forth by the will of the people.
Maybe your talking with officers here by illegal descent?
Any chance I can get my 90k per year to be on stand by and report a crime I may be witness to one day?

If you don't want to understand the issue - no one can help you.

Crime will rise and so will dead cops (the stats will look good though as people stop reporting crimes). Armed to the teeth and illegal when some cop pulls them over and they know he's going to ask their immigration status? The cop is - dead.

 

[RightyTighty]

Nope. The practice of birthright citizenship is entirely a convention. Trump could end it tomorrow with an executive order.

No, the President doesn't have the power to unilaterally overturn the Constitution and 200 years of SCOTUS precedence.

It's the law, not a "convention".

Maye he thinks all the past Presidents were just being nice?

What is it about you people who are so eager to see harmful immigration policy continue against the will of the majority of your fellow Americans?

People fleeing persecution (and looking for a better life here) aren't hurting - that is America.

How many? All of them? How long? Forever? No matter what? Who gets to decide? Them and their desires? or us and ours?

We decide my little xenophobe.

 

[cnelsen]

No, the President doesn't have the power to unilaterally overturn the Constitution and 200 years of SCOTUS precedence.

It's the law, not a "convention".

Maye he thinks all the past Presidents were just being nice?

What is it about you people who are so eager to see harmful immigration policy continue against the will of the majority of your fellow Americans?

People fleeing persecution (and looking for a better life here) aren't hurting - that is America.

How many? All of them? How long? Forever? No matter what? Who gets to decide? Them and their desires? or us and ours?

We decide my little xenophobe.

That's not what you just said, dick. In your last post you put their needs and wants as the test. Anyway. How many? All of them?

 

[BrokeLoser]

Good luck on the Birthright (you'll need a Constitutional amendment).

And enjoy crime going up (because people won't talk to the police). It will be terrific for the black market.

Mexicans don't talk to the police anyways

Now they really don't. Who can blame them.

I'm so confused by this comment...is this the new spin we're running with? Sanctuary cities should protect their illegals to preserve their participation in reporting crime?
Let me break this down for:
The average Hispanic family in CA looks like this:
Carlos and Guadalupe have 4-6 children born in the U.S. all attending public schools. Carlos works for $10 dollars an hour and averages 50 hours per week, Carlos grosses $500 per week in income.
Guadalupe is a stay at home mother.
The cost to attend a public school in CA is $10,600 per year per child. The cost of child birth in CA is $10,000. Carlos and Guadalupe get housing assistance, EBT, welfare, health coverage...etc etc all compliments of hard working real American taxpayers. I won't list all the other direct and indirect expenses related to Carlos' family as it would be retarded and a waste of time.
Do your own math and PLEASE explain to me how Carlos and Guadalupe are helping Americans and this country enough to justify keeping them around JUST IN CASE they witness a crime?
Come on man...is that really the best bunch of fabricated bullshit your people can come up with...haha
Libtards-
"We think it makes perfect sense to pay a family of seven 90k-ish per year to be a watch-dog JUST IN CASE they witness a crime."
LOL...Only in Libtardo Land

Ask the police why they like Sanctuary City policies - it starts with the fact non-citizens will cooperate with the police.

Haha...that's such bullshit. I have a number of friends in law enforcement here in LA and Orange County...all of them are flat out embarrassed that law makers refuse to enforce the law set forth by the will of the people.
Maybe your talking with officers here by illegal descent?
Any chance I can get my 90k per year to be on stand by and report a crime I may be witness to one day?

If you don't want to understand the issue - no one can help you.

Crime will rise and so will dead cops (the stats will look good though as people stop reporting crimes). Armed to the teeth and illegal when some cop pulls them over and they know he's going to ask their immigration status? The cop is - dead.

WOW...I just can't help but wonder how this nation ever got anything done before the invasion from the south?
Apparently we can't farm without illegals, we can't have nice lawns without illegals, we can't have fast food, fork lift operators and construction without illegals and now crimes would all go unreported if we don't have our 20-50 million paid watch-dogs....hahaha...FUNNY SHIT!
Do you folks ever stop and wonder how you sound to logical people with a third grade education?
p.s.- what part of Mexico are you from and how long have you been riding the backs of REAL American's?

 

[Auld Phart]

Trump: 'Many' scholars say 'anchor babies' aren't covered by Constitution

"Today, this clause is widely understood to mean that the Constitution requires that everyone born on U.S. soil -- regardless of parents’ citizenship -- is automatically an American citizen. We polled a number of experts in immigration law, and each one told us that this is the mainstream view among legal scholars, without question.

The matter is not considered 100 percent settled, though. For one, the clause doesn’t directly address illegal immigration. Also, the Supreme Court has never made a specific ruling about a person born to undocumented parents."

Not everyone - just the vast majority.

The 'vast majority' believes in separation of church and state.

Where is that in the Constitution?

How many times has the 2nd been before SCOTUS?

How many times has the Freedom of Speech been changed by SCOTUS?

SCOTUS has yet to rule on anchor babies of illegal aliens being natural born citizens.
(If you think it has, please link)