Texas denies anchor babies birth certificates

[Claudette]

Oh for heavens sakes. I give up.

You believe as you wish and I'll do the same.

Just one problem, the law is on his side and you are wrong.

Nope. The law was never a law.

For something that was never a law it sure has the power of law. Try again.

Yup and that's why they need to amend the amendment.

Try again.

As I said, good luck, you'll need it.

Nope the taxpayers of America will need it.

Try again.

 

[Ravi]

Just one problem, the law is on his side and you are wrong.

Nope. The law was never a law.

For something that was never a law it sure has the power of law. Try again.

Yup and that's why they need to amend the amendment.

Try again.

As I said, good luck, you'll need it.

Nope the taxpayers of America will need it.

Try again.

How so? You want to deny citizenship to future taxpayers. The people you are aiming to hurt, in the long run, are taxpayers.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And maybe this will help some of you out - What the 14th Amendment says is not nearly as important as what the Supreme Court says the 14th Amendment says...

 

[Care4all]

Oh for heavens sakes. I give up.

You believe as you wish and I'll do the same.

you give me a definition of the word 'jurisdiction' that includes the requirement for a home and i'll be happy to reconsider the issue.
why do you think that a 'domicile' is required for a person to fall under the jurisdiction of the united states?

it was a distinction between those on a vacation in the USA that may have a child born and those living in the USA and had a child born, whether legal or illegal....

so the term is used to determine if someone is living in an area....this could be renting, or owning a home, or living with a friend or relative or even living in a homeless shelter or in a car....if they live there, this is their 'home', their domicile, they've established roots, a connection....and even if they don't live there, but have kept a connection....like a home or apt, if they have not committed to living in a new state or new area in their state, then their jurisdiction on laws, resides in that domicile.

so, basically, where you have chosen to live, and/or make a living as an immigrant, whether legal or illegal, is your 'domicile' vs immigrants that are just passing through while vacationing....

those vacationing....kids born on us soil, not natural born citizens...

those born to immigrants, illegal or legal, who have basically 'set up house' here, ARE natural born citizens.

EDIT

At least I think so????????????? lol

it's a distinction that doesn't exist in the amendment. it's a distinction that isn't made in the wong decision.

in other words you're trying to hang your hat on something that just isn't there.

that's certainly possible.... I believe I picked that up from reading the Wong Case and summaries....

As far as jurisdiction, I agree we are all under the Jurisdiction of the USA when on USA soil, whether vacationing or not, whether legal or illegal...except Foreign Nationals, those we give diplomatic immunity to, and invading military/armies and their fams, which are under the jurisdiction of their Country....

However, if I remember reading correctly in the Wong case, they made a distinction with Wong's parents, showing that they had established a domicile here in the USA and showed that they had established a business here and were NOT here on a foreign nation's business.

So, basically...let me read some more to see if i can discern to the best of my ability, what 'all of that' was about...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Just one problem, the law is on his side and you are wrong.

Nope. The law was never a law.

For something that was never a law it sure has the power of law. Try again.

Yup and that's why they need to amend the amendment.

Try again.

As I said, good luck, you'll need it.

Nope the taxpayers of America will need it.

Try again.

You'll never get it passed. And these big bills you think you are paying, aren't...

 

[Claudette]

Nope. The law was never a law.

For something that was never a law it sure has the power of law. Try again.

Yup and that's why they need to amend the amendment.

Try again.

As I said, good luck, you'll need it.

Nope the taxpayers of America will need it.

Try again.

How so? You want to deny citizenship to future taxpayers. The people you are aiming to hurt, in the long run, are taxpayers.

Nope. We just don't need to provide social services to every illegal that gets into the US and uses her childs citizenship to get it.

Its as simple as that.

 

[Claudette]

Nope. The law was never a law.

For something that was never a law it sure has the power of law. Try again.

Yup and that's why they need to amend the amendment.

Try again.

As I said, good luck, you'll need it.

Nope the taxpayers of America will need it.

Try again.

You'll never get it passed. And these big bills you think you are paying, aren't...

WOW some crystal ball you have there. And where do you get I'll never get it passed??

 

[GHook93]

Texas Denies Birth Certificates to Children of Immigrants

Good job Texas! Leading the nation in common sense once again!

As it should be. Do we need to deport all illegals. Nope but we can easily take away the incentives: no free education, healthcare or any public assistance, eVerify and prosecute the employers and the EMPLOYEE who hired the illegal, combat sanctuary cities, etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PaintMyHouse]

For something that was never a law it sure has the power of law. Try again.

Yup and that's why they need to amend the amendment.

Try again.

As I said, good luck, you'll need it.

Nope the taxpayers of America will need it.

Try again.

You'll never get it passed. And these big bills you think you are paying, aren't...

WOW some crystal ball you have there. And where do you get I'll never get it passed??

Because it matters very little, and when we finally do the obvious, and grant blanket citizenship, again, this issue dies. You aren't going to be deporting them, and the anchor baby concept is a loser that the court ruled on more than 100 years ago. Your side lost.

 

[ogibillm]

Oh for heavens sakes. I give up.

You believe as you wish and I'll do the same.

you give me a definition of the word 'jurisdiction' that includes the requirement for a home and i'll be happy to reconsider the issue.
why do you think that a 'domicile' is required for a person to fall under the jurisdiction of the united states?

it was a distinction between those on a vacation in the USA that may have a child born and those living in the USA and had a child born, whether legal or illegal....

so the term is used to determine if someone is living in an area....this could be renting, or owning a home, or living with a friend or relative or even living in a homeless shelter or in a car....if they live there, this is their 'home', their domicile, they've established roots, a connection....and even if they don't live there, but have kept a connection....like a home or apt, if they have not committed to living in a new state or new area in their state, then their jurisdiction on laws, resides in that domicile.

so, basically, where you have chosen to live, and/or make a living as an immigrant, whether legal or illegal, is your 'domicile' vs immigrants that are just passing through while vacationing....

those vacationing....kids born on us soil, not natural born citizens...

those born to immigrants, illegal or legal, who have basically 'set up house' here, ARE natural born citizens.

EDIT

At least I think so????????????? lol

it's a distinction that doesn't exist in the amendment. it's a distinction that isn't made in the wong decision.

in other words you're trying to hang your hat on something that just isn't there.

that's certainly possible.... I believe I picked that up from reading the Wong Case and summaries....

As far as jurisdiction, I agree we are all under the Jurisdiction of the USA when on USA soil, whether vacationing or not, whether legal or illegal...except Foreign Nationals, those we give diplomatic immunity to, and invading military/armies and their fams, which are under the jurisdiction of their Country....

However, if I remember reading correctly in the Wong case, they made a distinction with Wong's parents, showing that they had established a domicile here in the USA and showed that they had established a business here and were NOT here on a foreign nation's business.

So, basically...let me read some more to see if i can discern to the best of my ability, what 'all of that' was about...

that distinction was to show that they were not here engaged in diplomatic action. in the opinion on the wong case it is made clear that citizenship by birth in the nation had been the norm, and that the 14th amendment was in no way meant to make citizenship more restrictive.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Texas Denies Birth Certificates to Children of Immigrants

Good job Texas! Leading the nation in common sense once again!

As it should be. Do we need to deport all illegals. Nope but we can easily take away the incentives: no free education, healthcare...

Those two have already died. One by the SC, one by Reagan...

 

[Mac1958]

Texas Denies Birth Certificates to Children of Immigrants

Good job Texas! Leading the nation in common sense once again!

I haven't read through this thread, but would it be safe to assume that the intent here is to have this end up with the SC?
.

 

[peach174]

Yup and that's why they need to amend the amendment.

Try again.

As I said, good luck, you'll need it.

Nope the taxpayers of America will need it.

Try again.

You'll never get it passed. And these big bills you think you are paying, aren't...

WOW some crystal ball you have there. And where do you get I'll never get it passed??

Because it matters very little, and when we finally do the obvious, and grant blanket citizenship, again, this issue dies. You aren't going to be deporting them, and the anchor baby concept is a loser that the court ruled on more than 100 years ago. Your side lost.

Every time we do that it brings in even more.
It gives others the incentive to do the same thing.

 

[g5000]

Texas Denies Birth Certificates to Children of Immigrants

Good job Texas! Leading the nation in common sense once again!

Good. Someone will finally have standing to take these ignorant bigots to court. Then all the retards will be schooled how wrong they are.

 

[Claudette]

Yup and that's why they need to amend the amendment.

Try again.

As I said, good luck, you'll need it.

Nope the taxpayers of America will need it.

Try again.

You'll never get it passed. And these big bills you think you are paying, aren't...

WOW some crystal ball you have there. And where do you get I'll never get it passed??

Because it matters very little, and when we finally do the obvious, and grant blanket citizenship, again, this issue dies. You aren't going to be deporting them, and the anchor baby concept is a loser that the court ruled on more than 100 years ago. Your side lost.

LMAO So you think a hundred year old decision can't be reversed?? If its found to be a law which its never been.

Oh and blanket citizenship?? The obvious?? Boy are you an narcissistic idiot.

Oh and of course the parents of the kids will want to leave them in America when they get deported??

It's not a side that's losing. Its the taxpayers of America.

 

[Syriusly]

Texas Denies Birth Certificates to Children of Immigrants

Good job Texas! Leading the nation in common sense once again!

Well its kind of stupid.

Doesn't change the citizenship of the children at all. Just means that the State of Texas has decided not to officially record of the birth of some American citizens.

 

[g5000]

Except that's completely unconstitutional.

Funny how once upon a few years ago the wingnuts all claimed that they were going to protect the Constitution.

Lying idiots.

It's about denying rights to people they hate. If that means not redefining state marriage and finally ridding ourselves of a tradition of oppression of gays, then so be it. If it means redefining citizenship and going against a centuries old tradition in order to strip a birthright away from American citizens, so be it.

They pretended during the gay marriage battle it was about definitions and traditions. But now it is undeniable their actions are really about keeping rights away from people they fear and loathe. That is the only consistency in their actions and their rhetoric. The rest is window dressing.

 

[Care4all]

Oh for heavens sakes. I give up.

You believe as you wish and I'll do the same.

you give me a definition of the word 'jurisdiction' that includes the requirement for a home and i'll be happy to reconsider the issue.
why do you think that a 'domicile' is required for a person to fall under the jurisdiction of the united states?

it was a distinction between those on a vacation in the USA that may have a child born and those living in the USA and had a child born, whether legal or illegal....

so the term is used to determine if someone is living in an area....this could be renting, or owning a home, or living with a friend or relative or even living in a homeless shelter or in a car....if they live there, this is their 'home', their domicile, they've established roots, a connection....and even if they don't live there, but have kept a connection....like a home or apt, if they have not committed to living in a new state or new area in their state, then their jurisdiction on laws, resides in that domicile.

so, basically, where you have chosen to live, and/or make a living as an immigrant, whether legal or illegal, is your 'domicile' vs immigrants that are just passing through while vacationing....

those vacationing....kids born on us soil, not natural born citizens...

those born to immigrants, illegal or legal, who have basically 'set up house' here, ARE natural born citizens.

EDIT

At least I think so????????????? lol

it's a distinction that doesn't exist in the amendment. it's a distinction that isn't made in the wong decision.

in other words you're trying to hang your hat on something that just isn't there.

that's certainly possible.... I believe I picked that up from reading the Wong Case and summaries....

As far as jurisdiction, I agree we are all under the Jurisdiction of the USA when on USA soil, whether vacationing or not, whether legal or illegal...except Foreign Nationals, those we give diplomatic immunity to, and invading military/armies and their fams, which are under the jurisdiction of their Country....

However, if I remember reading correctly in the Wong case, they made a distinction with Wong's parents, showing that they had established a domicile here in the USA and showed that they had established a business here and were NOT here on a foreign nation's business.

So, basically...let me read some more to see if i can discern to the best of my ability, what 'all of that' was about...

that distinction was to show that they were not here engaged in diplomatic action. in the opinion on the wong case it is made clear that citizenship by birth in the nation had been the norm, and that the 14th amendment was in no way meant to make citizenship more restrictive.

ty, that makes sense.... I was mistaken....it was about determining whether they were a foreign national or not!

 

[Claudette]

Texas Denies Birth Certificates to Children of Immigrants

Good job Texas! Leading the nation in common sense once again!

I haven't read through this thread, but would it be safe to assume that the intent here is to have this end up with the SC?
.

I'm wondering why the Governors of the States or the Attorney General haven't gotten this to the SC already.

I can imagine how much taxpayer money the States and the Fed Govt. are putting out for social services to the illegals in this country.

 

[Syriusly]

The 14th amendment didn't apply to Indians or children of foreign ambassadors in 1870....

It didn't apply to slaves in 1850, either.

But that was found to be unconstitutional.

Please stahp being stoopid.

You are showing your ignorance the 14th amendment only applied to slaves.....t

She was wrong- since the 14th Amendment didn't exist in 1850 but you are showing your ignorance too- since the 14th Amendment applies to everyone born or naturalized in the United States- not just slaves.