Trump supports immigration visas backed by Musk: ‘I have many H-1B visas on my properties’

[jc456]

My God, you are a total f-ing moron! The red text is the only part in the Amendment. How can you be that stupid and still function in life!

Here's another link with the language of what subject to jurisdiction means.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/08/30/14th-amendment-doesnt-make-illegal-aliens-children-citizens

Many today assume the second half of the citizenship clause ("subject to the jurisdiction thereof") merely refers to the day-to-day laws to which we are all subject. But the original understanding referred to political allegiance. Being subject to U.S. jurisdiction meant, as then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lyman Trumbull stated, "not owing allegiance to anybody else [but] subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." The author of the provision, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, pointed out that the jurisdiction language "will not, of course, include foreigners."

 

[jc456]

Jurisdiction in the law says I’m right. Legal interpretation. I get you don’t know the law

Care4all ,

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/08/30/14th-amendment-doesnt-make-illegal-aliens-children-citizens

Many today assume the second half of the citizenship clause ("subject to the jurisdiction thereof") merely refers to the day-to-day laws to which we are all subject. But the original understanding referred to political allegiance. Being subject to U.S. jurisdiction meant, as then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lyman Trumbull stated, "not owing allegiance to anybody else [but] subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." The author of the provision, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, pointed out that the jurisdiction language "will not, of course, include foreigners."

 

[jc456]

Women can be drafted? News to me!

me too?

 

[jc456]

That's hilarious, since I'm against the whole Duopoly, and think pretty much ALL of them are corrupt sell-outs at the higher levels.

But I'm not the topic here. Since Eagle didn't want to answer, do you agree with Trump's statement that "we need a lot of people coming in" ? But this is starting to get boring, no one wanting to be honest, so.... if you too don't want to answer the question, then that's fine too.

no, that's hilarious you partisan dick waver.

 

[Curried Goats]

Here's another link with the language of what subject to jurisdiction means.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/08/30/14th-amendment-doesnt-make-illegal-aliens-children-citizens

Many today assume the second half of the citizenship clause ("subject to the jurisdiction thereof") merely refers to the day-to-day laws to which we are all subject. But the original understanding referred to political allegiance. Being subject to U.S. jurisdiction meant, as then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lyman Trumbull stated, "not owing allegiance to anybody else [but] subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." The author of the provision, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, pointed out that the jurisdiction language "will not, of course, include foreigners."

Will not include foreigners is not an issue for children who are born here. At least not for people who can think rationally.

 

[jc456]

Will not include foreigners is not an issue for children who are born here. At least not for people who can think rationally.

amazing. babies of foreigners are foreigners. derp!!!

It was in 1898 (in United States v. Wong Kim Ark) that the Supreme Court expanded the constitutional mandate, holding that the children of legal, permanent residents were automatically citizens. While the decision could be (and is often) read more broadly, the court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of illegal residents.
The broader reading is a constitutional misreading. Not only does it grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, it also gives full due-process rights to the likes of Taliban fighter Yasir Hamdi (born in the United States of visiting Saudi parents and captured fighting U.S. soldiers 20 years later in Afghanistan).

 

[Curried Goats]

amazing. babies of foreigners are foreigners. derp!!!

If they were born a foreign. If they were born in America they are the very defintion of native.

 

[jc456]

If they were born a foreign. If they were born in America they are the very defintion of native.

from my link dumbass

It was in 1898 (in United States v. Wong Kim Ark) that the Supreme Court expanded the constitutional mandate, holding that the children of legal, permanent residents were automatically citizens. While the decision could be (and is often) read more broadly, the court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of illegal residents.
The broader reading is a constitutional misreading. Not only does it grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, it also gives full due-process rights to the likes of Taliban fighter Yasir Hamdi (born in the United States of visiting Saudi parents and captured fighting U.S. soldiers 20 years later in Afghanistan).

 

[Curried Goats]

from my link dumbass

It was in 1898 (in United States v. Wong Kim Ark) that the Supreme Court expanded the constitutional mandate, holding that the children of legal, permanent residents were automatically citizens. While the decision could be (and is often) read more broadly, the court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of illegal residents.
The broader reading is a constitutional misreading. Not only does it grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, it also gives full due-process rights to the likes of Taliban fighter Yasir Hamdi (born in the United States of visiting Saudi parents and captured fighting U.S. soldiers 20 years later in Afghanistan).

Your link to the opinion piece? What about it? Is that dipshit aware of how our laws are actually practiced?

 

[Mac-7]

Please, spare me from your nonsense!

I was wrong about that

Officially illegal aliens can be forced into the US Army

But I dont think that has ever been tested in court

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Here's another link with the language of what subject to jurisdiction means.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/08/30/14th-amendment-doesnt-make-illegal-aliens-children-citizens

Many today assume the second half of the citizenship clause ("subject to the jurisdiction thereof") merely refers to the day-to-day laws to which we are all subject. But the original understanding referred to political allegiance. Being subject to U.S. jurisdiction meant, as then-Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lyman Trumbull stated, "not owing allegiance to anybody else [but] subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." The author of the provision, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan, pointed out that the jurisdiction language "will not, of course, include foreigners."

Diplomats. You still have not provided a law that contradicts the SCOTUS ruling in 1898. Keep trying! It is fun to watch an idiot try to sit in the corner of a round room.

 

[jc456]

Diplomats. You still have not provided a law that contradicts the SCOTUS ruling in 1898. Keep trying! It is fun to watch an idiot try to sit in the corner of a round room.

no I don't, you must prove that SCOTUS ruling includes what you think it does, and it doesn't as I already pointed out in both my links now. Doesn't say anything about illegal.

 

[Mac-7]

Diplomats. You still have not provided a law that contradicts the SCOTUS ruling in 1898. Keep trying! It is fun to watch an idiot try to sit in the corner of a round room.

It all rests on SC a decision

That can be reconsidered

 

[ColonelAngus]

For the FAKE LIBERTARIANS AND ANARCHO-CAPITALISTS who post on this board.

Murray Rothbard’s take on immigration is:

"A totally privatized country would be as 'closed' as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors."

Of course, you lying bags of trash do not know this because you claim to be libertarian just so you can try to justify bashing both sides.

Your posts expose your lies. Every single time you post.

You are even too lazy to do a little research to fake it.

Imagine an undercover Fed doing no research on Trump supporters for their Jan 6th ruse. IMAGINE IF THEY SAID THEY ARE TRUMP SUPPORTERS…AND THEN TALKED ABOUT HOW THEY LOVE MEN IN WOMEN’S MMA.

I have even left dozens of posts for you frauds to do your research in order to make it. BUT YOU ARE TOO LAZY TO READ,

Typical lefty trash.

 

[Curried Goats]

no I don't, you must prove that SCOTUS ruling includes what you think it does, and it doesn't as I already pointed out in both my links now. Doesn't say anything about illegal.

It's proven by the application of the law you dipshit. Children born here have the legal status of citizen. Facts.

 

[jc456]

It's proven by the application of the law you dipshit. Children born here have the legal status of citizen. Facts.

funny shit right there. It's an amendment and the law. No application of anything.

 

[Mac-7]

It's proven by the application of the law you dipshit. Children born here have the legal status of citizen. Facts.

They do, but only the children of legal residents deserve that gift

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

no I don't, you must prove that SCOTUS ruling includes what you think it does, and it doesn't as I already pointed out in both my links now. Doesn't say anything about illegal.

You can't read. That has already been established with no doubt involved. Have you had someone read it to you and explain what it means?

 

[Curried Goats]

For the FAKE LIBERTARIANS AND ANARCHO-CAPITALISTS who post on this board.

Murray Rothbard’s take on immigration is:

"A totally privatized country would be as 'closed' as the particular inhabitants and property owners desire. It seems clear, then, that the regime of open borders that exists de facto in the U.S. really amounts to a compulsory opening by the central state, the state in charge of all streets and public land areas, and does not genuinely reflect the wishes of the proprietors."

Of course, you lying bags of trash do not know this because you claim to be libertarian just so you can try to justify bashing both sides.

Your posts expose your lies. Every single time you post.

You are even too lazy to do a little research to fake it.

Imagine an undercover Fed doing no research on Trump supporters for their Jan 6th ruse. IMAGINE IF THEY SAID THEY ARE TRUMP SUPPORTERS…AND THEN TALKED ABOUT HOW THEY LOVE MEN IN WOMEN’S MMA.

I have even left dozens of posts for you frauds to do your research in order to make it. BUT YOU ARE TOO LAZY TO READ,

Typical lefty trash.

Real libertarianism would only require one liberal elite coastal home owner to allow hordes of immigrants to enter at will.

 

[jc456]

You can't read. That has already been established with no doubt involved. Have you had someone read it to you and explain what it means?

Sorry chief. I don't need to prove anything to you. The language is the language and your SCOTUS reference isn't accurate to illegal aliens.