Is there a politician with the balls to lobby for a rewrite of the 14th / the anchor baby statute?

[BackAgain]

I'm sorry officer, but olf von odelsky said that I could rob that bank and get away with if I thought that I was a citizen of Poland.

No. He didn’t. Your grasp on basic English communication is weaker than your grasp on reality. And that’s not a grasp at all. It was a slip.

 

[BackAgain]

Are you on medication?

Yes. But unlike you, mine isn’t for psychosis. Just some high blood pressure. Get back on your meds. Stat!

 

[BackAgain]

A completely irrelevant question. Do you honestly think that a law degree imparts special ability to comprehend the written word?

I keep having to make note of this:

The SCOTUS makes its “decisions”’from “on high.” That clearly doesn’t make them correct. But it’s like an argument with the umpire: “gee, I wonder if the manager will win this argument?” They (SCOTUS) end up being “right” only trivial definition. Still, they did decide Dred Scott. I am pleased to report their holding is no longer the law of the land. Why? Because they decided that case wrongly.

Lol. Aside from her return to “stalking” me and ringing up the downvotes, boredtoseeya (by noting her disagreement) is suggesting that the SCOTUS didn’t get Dred Scott wrong.

How refreshing to see a sour old fat slob pig Democrat admit that it is racist.

 

[surada]

You’re right. That child isn’t granted US citizenship merely by virtue of the happenstance of being born here. That’s the point. Whether being born here is all that’s required to be a natural born US citizen is the question. It is not the conclusion.

(Your conclusion is that being born here does confer automatic citizenship. I doubt that. It could be true. But in the words of the old song, “it ain’t necessarily so.”)

It does automatically confer US citizenship unless you are working as an ambassador to the US in a diplmomatic mission. You should take some courses in law school because you are utterly blinded by your assumptions and ignorance.

 

[BS Filter]

Where in the 14th Amendment does it state it only applies to former slaves and their descendants?

It's the purpose of the 14th Amendment. Read a history book.

 

[BackAgain]

When Mexico claims jurisdiction over a Mexican in the US they file extradition papers because they have NO jurisdiction in the US.

Call your local law school and tell them you know better.

That I know better than you? Pfft. No need to tell a school that. The weakness of your arguments serves that purpose.

 

[BackAgain]

It does automatically confer US citizenship unless you are working as an ambassador to the US in a diplmomatic mission. You should take some courses in law school because you are utterly blinded by your assumptions and ignorance.

No. It doesn’t. That is just the umpteenth time you’ve made the claim in the form of a conclusion.

 

[Ringtone]

The intent is clearly stated in the Amendment. The need for the Amendment was reconstruction south racial issues, but they didn't just state African-Americans in the amendment.

Did they.

More confusion.

 

[bodecea]

It's the purpose of the 14th Amendment. Read a history book.

Where in the 14th Amendment does it state that birthright citizenship only applies to former slaves and their descendants?

 

[otto105]

It's the purpose of the 14th Amendment. Read a history book.

Where in the 14th Amendment does it state that it was for former slaves only?

 

[surada]

No. He didn’t. Your grasp on basic English communication is weaker than your grasp on reality. And that’s not a grasp at all. It was a slip.

When you go to law school you practically have to learn to read all over again. Its critical thinking on steroids and its brutal.

 

[BackAgain]

When you go to law school you practically have to learn to read all over again. Its critical thinking on steroids and its brutal.

I know. When did you drop out?

 

[BS Filter]

Where in the 14th Amendment does it state that it was for former slaves only?

Answer post 304.

 

[otto105]

Answer post 304.

It doesn't.

 

[Indeependent]

So you disagreed with the decision.. Do you have a JD?

A JD is not required to serve on the USSC.

 

[surada]

I know. When did you drop out?

I didn't drop out .. I am a civil litigation paralegal.. and I was in the top 10% .. I had 4 children at home and needed to get back to work.

I was always a good student in very demanding schools, but reading law really humbled me.

 

[Indeependent]

I didn't drop out .. I am a civil litigation paralegal.. and I was in the top 10% .. I had 4 children at home and needed to get back to work.

I was always a good student in very demanding schools, but reading law really humbled me.

Reading law always helps and that's why 100 lawyers in a room won't agree on a single issue.

 

[BackAgain]

I didn't drop out .. I am a civil litigation paralegal.. and I was in the top 10% .. I had 4 children at home and needed to get back to work.

I was always a good student in very demanding schools, but reading law really humbled me.

Nothing wrong with being a paralegal.

but that’s not really the point. You make statements in the form of definitive conclusions. You begin to support your view but, when pushed, you have an annoying tendency to simply reiterate your conclusion AS a premise.

I tell you again: whether or not the 14th Amendment actually supports the “anchor baby” contention that the mere happenstance of being born on US soil automatically confers a person with US citizenship is the question. It is not the answer.

Despite your fervent belief, that question has yet to be definitively answered.

 

[surada]

Reading law always helps and that's why 100 lawyers in a room won't agree on a single issue.

US citizenship law is pretty basic stuff unless you're stupid.

 

[BS Filter]

It doesn't.

So the 14th Amendment isn't about the citizenship rights of former slaves. There you have it, folks. Right from otto105.