Trump will announce end of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, officials say

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The people not to be included were foreign diplomats and American native tribes, not the children of immigrants.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes. Therapy, GAC, for the mentally disturbed is beneficial. Your surgical and chemical experiments on children. Nope.

Obviously, you don't understand what GAC means... so I don't think there's much point talking to you.

 

[beagle9]

Well, the UK will probably reverse course now that the Labor is back in charge.



Actually, there's a whole lot of science proving the value of GAC

The benefits of gender-affirming care

Together, we can make health care inclusive for trans youth

sph.washington.edu

Gender-affirming Care Saves Lives

Growing legislative attempts to limit, ban, or criminalize access to this critical model of medical care endangers the health and well-being of transgender and nonbinary youth.

www.columbiapsychiatry.org

Study Finds Long-Term Mental Health Benefits of Gender-Affirming Surgery for Transgender Individuals

The American Journal of Psychiatry has published an erratum notice after conducting a statistical analysis that was prompted by letters questioning the methodology of “Reduction in Mental Health Treatment Utilization Among Transgender Individuals After Gender-Affirming Surgeries: A Total...

www.psychiatry.org

Sick stuff

 

[beagle9]

Obviously, you don't understand what GAC means... so I don't think there's much point talking to you.

Run away..

 

[JoeB131]

Run away..

If you don't understand the topic, there's not much point talking to you.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Those aliens and non-citizens were Native Americans, and diplomatic personnel or their families. Stop making shit up! If it isn't written into the text of the amendment, it doesn't fly, because we cannot assume something that is not there. Doing that is what got us Roe v. Wade because there was nothing in the text of the Constitution to support abortion rights.

Ok, show me where they meant aliens meant natives?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Ok, show me where they meant aliens meant natives?

The wording never mentions aliens. Native Americans weren't citizens until much later.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The wording never mentions aliens. Native Americans weren't citizens until much later.

It never mentions native Americans either

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It never mentions native Americans either

Because they were not under the jurisdiction of the US, they were mentioned!

 

[WorldWatcher]

Because they were not under the jurisdiction of the US, they were mentioned!

IIRC - I think technically that only applied to Indians (Native Americans) located on reservations because they were considered sovereign nations.

WW

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

IIRC - I think technically that only applied to Indians (Native Americans) located on reservations because they were considered sovereign nations.

WW

1924.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

It never mentions native Americans either

... because then they were not citizens.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

IIRC - I think technically that only applied to Indians (Native Americans) located on reservations because they were considered sovereign nations.

WW

Only in 1924, on or off rez.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Because they were not under the jurisdiction of the US, they were mentioned!

there were also aliens here, who were not under the jurisdiction, at the time too (non citizens), so, being that the 14th amendment doesn't mention aliens, it also doesn't mention native Americans, so now we're back to having no definition.

 

[ThisIsMe]

... because then they were not citizens.

Neither were any other people in the country at the time who weren't citizens.

Were trying to define "subject to the jurisdiction". Now, I've provided text of the debates of the people who wrote the amendment, defining what they meant, but have been told that since the words of the debate were not included in the amendment, then they don't matter. Well, the words native Americans were also not written into the 14th amendment so, that's not what they meant either.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

there were also aliens here, who were not under the jurisdiction, at the time too (non citizens), so, being that the 14th amendment doesn't mention aliens, it also doesn't mention native Americans, so now we're back to having no definition.

There is a definition and that included everyone who was not under the jurisdiction. Why can't you get that through your thick cranium?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Neither were any other people in the country at the time who weren't citizens.

Were trying to define "subject to the jurisdiction". Now, I've provided text of the debates of the people who wrote the amendment, defining what they meant, but have been told that since the words of the debate were not included in the amendment, then they don't matter. Well, the words native Americans were also not written into the 14th amendment so, that's not what they meant either.

Not under the jurisdiction included Native Americans because they were not under the jurisdiction of this country. They were not US citizens. Why do you continue to argue against yourself?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

there were also aliens here, who were not under the jurisdiction, at the time too (non citizens), so, being that the 14th amendment doesn't mention aliens, it also doesn't mention native Americans, so now we're back to having no definition.

No, your argument fails on the merit of the language of the amendment.

 

[ThisIsMe]

There is a definition and that included everyone who was not under the jurisdiction. Why can't you get that through your thick cranium?

Where is that definition? Because your definition is obviously different than mine. I'm taking my definition from the people who wrote the amendment.... jurisdiction, in this case, was anyone not owing allegiance to any other country.

where are you getting your definition?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Not under the jurisdiction included Native Americans because they were not under the jurisdiction of this country. They were not US citizens. Why do you continue to argue against yourself?

And neither were any other foreigners (non citizens) under the jurisdiction of the country. Jurisdiction is not about "laws" in this case, it's about owing allegiance to any other country or a country having complete jurisdiction over a person.

In the debates that we've read, native Americans were not even mentioned.

Why can't you look at what the writers intended?