The case for birthright citizenship.

[Curried Goats]

Bwaaa haaa haaa.

That's right, let the delirium set in....

 

[Delldude]

Dobbs overturned Roe because it wasn't in the Constitution. This is.

No it isn't. It was an interpretation of the Constitution just like Roe was.

That's why they call rulings opinions.

 

[Curried Goats]

Help me Obi Wan Kenobi you're my only help.....

Well you're shit out of luck there. I'm not here to help you.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No it isn't. It was an interpretation of the Constitution just like Roe was.

That's why they call rulings opinions.

Roe had zero constitutional basis. That was even admitted by Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and that is why Dobbs was ruled as it was.

 

[Curried Goats]

aw, gee whizz......thought we was goin be bestest buddies......

I'm sure you did. You seem stuck on stargazing mode at the moment. What are you going to fantasize about next?

 

[Delldude]

Roe had zero constitutional basis. That was even admitted by Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and that is why Dobbs was ruled as it was.

Sure about that?

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protected the right to have an abortion.

 

[task0778]

What's the point of having any kind of legal immigration system if anybody can come in illegally (lack of consent) and have kids that are considered citizens from birth and the parents are therefore allowed to be citizens too? Today's world is quite different from the one that existed 150-250 years ago, and the intent of the 14th Amendment framers was different from the situation we face now.
Take an illegal immigrant that shows up for his/her court appearance. There should be a process for that person to become a citizen and their kids too, separate from the one that legal immigrants go through. Do that, and we should confer citizenship, assuming there are no valid reasons to deny it. But an illegal who does not show up for that court appearance ought to be deported IMHO and their kids too, no matter where they were born.

Ultimately, it ought to be codified in law, as prescribed by Congress and signed by the President. Currently the Constitution is somewhat vague and requires some details for what to do with the offspring of illegal immigrants, and that needs to change. Unfortunately it appears that the present climate of hostilities in our gov't preclude that from happening, but I question whether President Trump has or should have the authority to make those decisions.

 

[Delldude]

What's the point of having any kind of legal immigration system if anybody can come in illegally (lack of consent) and have kids that are considered citizens from birth and the parents are therefore allowed to be citizens too? Today's world is quite different from the one that existed 150-250 years ago, and the intent of the 14th Amendment framers was different from the situation we face now.
Take an illegal immigrant that shows up for his/her court appearance. There should be a process for that person to become a citizen and their kids too, separate from the one that legal immigrants go through. Do that, and we should confer citizenship, assuming there are no valid reasons to deny it. But an illegal who does not show up for that court appearance ought to be deported IMHO and their kids too, no matter where they were born.

Ultimately, it ought to be codified in law, as prescribed by Congress and signed by the President. Currently the Constitution is somewhat vague and requires some details for what to do with the offspring of illegal immigrants, and that needs to change. Unfortunately it appears that the present climate of hostilities in our gov't preclude that from happening, but I question whether President Trump has or should have the authority to make those decisions.

What's wrong with doing it legally and getting them in line like so many have done it before?

 

[Curried Goats]

You making a coherent post.

Your expressed inability to understand has got nothing to do with me, no matter how hard you try to imagine otherwise.

 

[task0778]

What's wrong with doing it legally and getting them in line like so many have done it before?

Nothing wrong with that at all, but we've got 20-40 million of these illegals here today and more coming. Something needs to be done, I do not see how we can round up that many people and deport them outta here. How are we going to pay for identifying them, finding them, and sending them somewhere else? Are they going to get a court hearing first? It just doesn't sound feasible to me. And it makes no sense until the southern border is secure, what's the point of deporting people if they can just walk right back in? Maybe we can't stop 100% of the illegals from entering but we can sure as hell reduce the numbers as much as possible.

 

[Curried Goats]

Nothing wrong with that at all, but we've got 20-40 million of these illegals here today and more coming. Something needs to be done, I do not see how we can round up that many people and deport them outta here. How are we going to pay for identifying them, finding them, and sending them somewhere else? Are they going to get a court hearing first? It just doesn't sound feasible to me. And it makes no sense until the southern border is secure, what's the point of deporting people if they can just walk right back in? Maybe we can't stop 100% of the illegals from entering but we can sure as hell reduce the numbers as much as possible.

Accept your status as cuckolds. It's better that way. Emotionally.

 

[Delldude]

And here we are today......and now we know why the left fought tooth and nail to stop the border wall...........our current reality was all in the plan.

Why is cost a concern? Didn't see many trying to stop Ukraine money, money without a clue to how it was being spent. Probably could have covered deportations.

I don't think they should even have a court hearing, just send them back across the border. That's what Hungary does.

 

[task0778]

Why is cost a concern? Didn't see many trying to stop Ukraine money, money without a clue to how it was being spent. Probably could have covered deportations.

I don't care about the Ukraine money, however ill-spent it was. One should not justify stupid spending based on other stupid spending, if that is what it was/is. I have not seen any estimate of the cost to the taxpayers for whatever the final plan is, if there ever is one. I think we should know that first and foremost. Which I kinda doubt will happen, but that's another discussion to have. IMHO, the cost of mass deportations isn't going to be cheap.

I don't think they should even have a court hearing, just send them back across the border. That's what Hungary does.

Don't care what Hungary or anyone else does. And I'm not sure we shouldn't distinguish between the desireables and the not-so-desireables, but I can also see where if you were caught and released and got a court date that you didn't show up for, then see ya. And there are those who snuck in and weren't caught, should they get a chance to show why they shouldn't be deported? There are valid reasons why we do not deport some illegals, right?

To me, at least we should grab the low-hanging fruit: criminals, gang-members, drug dealers and the like. But again the problem is that they can get back in fairly easily it seems. What's the logic in deporting people if you can't stop them from coming back? I think the 1st order of business for Congress is to finish that wall and properly man and monitor it. I can't believe that in this day and age with the drones and cameras and even satellites that we have that we can't find where the illegals are coming across and take effective action to stop it.

 

[Delldude]

I don't care about the Ukraine money, however ill-spent it was.

Point was we've spent enough over there to probably pay for deportations twice.

I can't believe that in this day and age with the drones and cameras and even satellites that we have that we can't find where the illegals are coming across and take effective action to stop it.

We know exactly where they're coming across. Biden didn't care. Gov of Texas put barriers up to stop the flow across the river and Biden's response was to sue.

To me, at least we should grab the low-hanging fruit: criminals, gang-members, drug dealers and the like.

Anyone not coming through a POE seeking asylum violated immigration law and is a criminal.

Don't care what Hungary or anyone else does.

Point was we should do the same, turn around, go home. Why do we need legal proceedings?

 

[Cougarbear]

The jurisdiction the parents come from will be the sole argument. Children won't matter.....basically they are an after the fact issue.

Hope so because the left is making it all about the children.

 

[Cougarbear]

It doesn't say that, now does it?

Doesn't say what? Can a child say they have allegiance to the U.S.? Of course not. Now does it?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Sure about that?

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protected the right to have an abortion.

Well, except that it didn't because it did not specify any wording in the Constitution to validate that right. That is why it was overturned. Please cite the portion of the Constitution that deals with abortion if you disagree.

 

[Delldude]

Please cite the portion of the Constitution that deals with abortion if you disagree.

The court interpreted the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to include the right to abortion., if you look into Dobb's, those were the amendments that were determined not to include the right.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The court interpreted the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to include the right to abortion., if you look into Dobb's, those were the amendments that were determined not to include the right.

Well, except for the fact that it wasn't there, hence Dobbs. You said it yourself. Roe was based on a fantasy right not even written into the Constitution. Game, set, match!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Doesn't say what? Can a child say they have allegiance to the U.S.? Of course not. Now does it?

Jus soli. It has been explained ad nauseum to you doubters. I taught this as part of my government classes back in the 90s. It is not a new concept.