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

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

It is fun to watch the alt right immigrant haters flopple and flabble about birthright citizenship.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

" Disingenuous Farce Lacks Integrity "

* Slow Horse Self Describes Intuition *

The challenge exists and is overtly clear , whereas only your dishonesty and ineptitude exists for failing to address meaning of the term thereof from the phrase " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " .

Come on , do not be a ***** , man up , give it a go .

The meaning of the term has been made clear. You are simply incapable to argue your position effectively.

 

[schmidlap]

Very poorly written amendment, and so much so that it has been left exposed to interpretations by leftist like you, otherwise who ignore the real meaning of the amendment in which would have never allowed what you leftist have since created all due to your disingenuous interpretation of our constitution for nefarious purposes.

Your paranoid fixation with your "leftists" - Americans who support the Constitution and an Amendment's consistant interpretation for 160 years - does not address your problem of where you would banish your targeted American citizens who have never lived anywhere else.

 

[ThisIsMe]

What LAW is being changed?

Any "law" that a new cotus interpretation brings. Such as abortion being the "law of the land"

 

[ThisIsMe]

The policy was the same as it always was. There were no illegal immigrants.

That doesn't answer the question because. Before 1866 there were no illegals because there were no laws and nothing in the cotus. That changed after 14A

 

[ThisIsMe]

You are the one claiming it is being misinterpreted and have regularly failed to make your case. I predict that will be the decision in the federal courts and SCOTUS will not even consider it. How is changing the wording to be explicit going to be reinterpreted? Not likely.

I've made my case, you just appear to want to only go with the...later...scotus decision that fits what you want. I've shown you the information that shows what the people who wrote a d passed the amendment intended, and have asked you to show me any cases of BRC to any illegal alien between 1866 and 1898. You want to just ignore all of that...becasue..agenda??

If you want to ignore the intent of the people who wrote the 14A, then let's just ignore the intent behind the entire cotus..

 

[ThisIsMe]

We have a republican form of government in every state, you dumbass! That's not anything to do with the Democrat Party. Stop being an idiot.

no...lol, read it again.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,"

this means that every state in the union will have a republican form of federal government. Meaning the federal government can't be a Democrat government. Lol

 

[ThisIsMe]

Makes no sense

Sure it does.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Disincentivizing Come First Served With Eighteen Years Of Social Subsistence "

* Reiterating Problems Of Individuals Without A Citizenship In Some Nation *

Your paranoid fixation with your "leftists" - Americans who support the Constitution and an Amendment's consistant interpretation for 160 years - does not address your problem of where you would banish your targeted American citizens who have never lived anywhere else.

Again , individuals without citizenship would be an agenda to manifest a crisis .

The children born in the united states to migrants whom are not subjects by title in us legal immigration system do not satisfy the phrase " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " in us 14th amendment .

There is a difference between " subject to us jurisdiction " and a " subject of us jurisdiction " .

The theistic communists seeking tithing from government coffers , to establish its precedence and grow its hole he see , disregard us taxpayer indemnity for18 years of social subsistence , without vetting of candidates for citizenship through merit based legal immigration system .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Challenge To Pass Or Fail A Test In Propositional Logic "

* Slow Pitch *

The meaning of the term has been made clear. You are simply incapable to argue your position effectively.

Would ewe agree or disagree there is a difference between an individual being subject to us jurisdiction versus an individual being a subject of us jurisdiction ?

Could an individual be subject to us jurisdiction while also being a subject of us jurisdiction , or could an individual be subject to us jurisdiction and also not be a subject of us jurisdiction ?

How many dissertations in political science have you read regarding differences between an individual being " subject to us jurisdiction " versus an individual being a " subject of us jurisdiction " ?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I've made my case, you just appear to want to only go with the...later...scotus decision that fits what you want. I've shown you the information that shows what the people who wrote a d passed the amendment intended, and have asked you to show me any cases of BRC to any illegal alien between 1866 and 1898. You want to just ignore all of that...becasue..agenda??

If you want to ignore the intent of the people who wrote the 14A, then let's just ignore the intent behind the entire cotus..

Your argument leads to you changing the amendment. Go for it.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

" Challenge To Pass Or Fail A Test In Propositional Logic "

* Slow Pitch *

Would ewe agree or disagree there is a difference between an individual being subject to us jurisdiction versus an individual being a subject of us jurisdiction ?

Could an individual be subject to us jurisdiction while also being a subject of us jurisdiction , or could an individual be subject to us jurisdiction and also not be a subject of us jurisdiction ?

How many dissertations in political science have you read regarding differences between an individual being " subject to us jurisdiction " versus an individual being a " subject of us jurisdiction " ?

Anyone who is not a birthed child of a foreign diplomat born on US soild is a citizen. End of story until the Amendment is changed.

 

[San Souci]

Any "law" that a new cotus interpretation brings. Such as abortion being the "law of the land"

Abortion is NOT a "Law".

 

[schmidlap]

" Disincentivizing Come First Served With Eighteen Years Of Social Subsistence "

* Reiterating Problems Of Individuals Without A Citizenship In Some Nation *

Again , individuals without citizenship would be an agenda to manifest a crisis .

The children born in the united states to migrants whom are not subjects by title in us legal immigration system do not satisfy the phrase " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " in us 14th amendment .

There is a difference between " subject to us jurisdiction " and a " subject of us jurisdiction " .

The theistic communists seeking tithing from government coffers , to establish its precedence and grow its hole he see , disregard us taxpayer indemnity for18 years of social subsistence , without vetting of candidates for citizenship through merit based legal immigration system .

14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

No mention of parents' nationality or immigration status.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Tweedle Dee And Tweedle Dumb Predicate Logic Stalwart "

* Establishing Precedence Through Linguistic Determination For Meaning *

14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
No mention of parents' nationality or immigration status.

If " and subject to the jurisdiction " and " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " are different phraseology , what is the difference in meaning between the two phrases ?

Is there a difference between an individual whom is subject to us jurisdiction and an individual whom is a subject of us jurisdiction ?

An etymology of the term thereof , would be deconstructed to the terms there and of , which would implicitly relate only with individuals whom are of etas unis .

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Stalwart Stupidity On A Monumental Scale "

* Birth Tourism Interdiction *

Anyone who is not a birthed child of a foreign diplomat born on US soild is a citizen. End of story until the Amendment is changed.

The only thing your premise provides is a necessity for a police state for public protection against a vice , where a vice is an illicit behavior incurring public indemnity , whereby theft through 18 years of social subsistence and social services is a vice , and legitimately us borders are subject to strict enforcement through absolute exclusion of foreign national females .

* Ten Thirty Over Ride *

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

It is fun to watch the alt right immigrant haters flopple and flabble about birthright citizenship.

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[schmidlap]

" Tweedle Dee And Tweedle Dumb Predicate Logic Stalwart "

* Establishing Precedence Through Linguistic Determination For Meaning *

If " and subject to the jurisdiction " and " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " are different phraseology , what is the difference in meaning between the two phrases ?

Is there a difference between an individual whom is subject to us jurisdiction and an individual whom is a subject of us jurisdiction ?

An etymology of the term thereof , would be deconstructed to the terms there and of , which would implicitly relate only with individuals whom are of etas unis .

Quibbles aside, American citizens, recognized as such under the 14th Amendment, are not about to be deported to who-knows-where.

 

[Monk-Eye]

" Water Shed For Upland Flooding "

* Disincentivizing Magnanimous Indemnity Without Cruelty *

Quibbles aside, American citizens, recognized as such under the 14th Amendment, are not about to be deported to who-knows-where.

There would not be a compelling justification to pursue the expense and disparagement of deporting those whose applications for citizenship have been approved and processed .

Alternatively , disincentivizing illegal immigration by disavowing national indemnities to opportunistic theft by incursion are justifiable reasons to enforce terminology and practices consistent with us constitution for an entitlement of us republic to solvency .

Read a synopsis of United States v. Wong Kim Ark - Wikipedia and respond as to whether the parents of wrong ark kim were subjects of us government , by virtue of being a subject by title in us legal immgration system - by visa .

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That doesn't answer the question because. Before 1866 there were no illegals because there were no laws and nothing in the cotus. That changed after 14A

No, it didn't change. That is the f-ing point, dumbass! I told you that you couldn't read.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

no...lol, read it again.

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,"

this means that every state in the union will have a republican form of federal government. Meaning the federal government can't be a Democrat government. Lol

Democrats are a party, not a form of government. You obviously failed your government/civics class in high school. and never passed your GED test either.