Trumps deportation plan would cost $100-$200 BILLION

[bripat9643]

Trump seems to think that all you have to do is to pick Juan up off the street and drive him to Nuevo Laredo. He seems to have forgotten details, like the constitutionally required trial, and conviction, first (for which we would most likely have to pay Juan's attorney).

The constitution is only for We The people.

The Constitution applies to everyone on American soil. look it up for yourself.

That'a recent libturd interpretation. For example, it never applied to Indians until they were made citizens.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

You clearly have a trouble with comprehension. The only persons born in the US who would not be considered citizens, by virtue of their birth would be. "foreigners, alien, WHO BELONG TO THE FAMILIES OF AMBASSADORS OR FOREIGN MINISTERS..." Only foreigners who are the children of ambassadors or foreign ministers here on official duty would not be considered to be natural born citizens.

Evidently you don't understand english composition, when terms are separated by a comma they stand alone. What is it you didn't understand when he said: And "jurisdiction" did not mean simply subject to the laws of the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of its courts. Rather, "jurisdiction" meant exclusive "allegiance" to the United States."

I understand better than you. So do the numerous judges who have held that those born here are citizens.

Right, some leftist judge knows better than the guy who wrote it. Does it hurt to be that gullible?

More than one guy wrote it. Many contributed to it. Its meaning was then debated. Are you suggesting that the Courts are bound by what one person construed it to mean? Sheer idiocy. Of course, what he wrote above is consistent with what the Courts have held; unless born to an ambassador or his wife or a member of his family who are here as diplomats and therefore "not subject to the jurisdiction" of the laws of the United States, a person born here is a citizen upon birth. So, if you want to apply the Amendment consistent with the intent of one of its drafters, then the Court have been getting it right all of this time.

More than one concurred with the definition, in fact American Indians were excluded under the 14th because they owed allegiance to their tribal nations. That didn't change until the 1920's when congress made them US citizens, by law, what makes illegals any different?

American Indians already occupied this nation, Congress only rightly acknowledged their shared claim to this land that they had previous ownership of. Illegal aliens migrated from another country, have no respect for the laws in this country, and in exchange believe they are entitled to what other immigrants had to endure through the long process of obtaining proper "legal" citizenship. There my friend, is the difference.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Trumps deportation plan would cost $100-$200 BILLION

Nobody said crazy is cheap.

How much do you think it costs to have "sanctuary cities" that encourage and endorse even more illegals to come into their region, over other stricter law abiding locations. Top that off with state drivers licenses, taxpayer covered free education, unemployment benefits, and health care. Discouraging further illegals from coming in by enforcement, is cheaper than those actions which enable millions more to come across and reap what our nation's taxpayers provide. Legalization didn't solve the issue under President Reagan, only an idiot is willing to do the same thing twice.

 

[HUGGY]

Trumps deportation plan would cost $100-$200 BILLION

Nobody said crazy is cheap.

Illegal aliens cost $130 billion each year. Trump's plan is a bargain.

I sure feel sorry for the kid and his parents of that disgusting avie you use.

You don't give a crap.

Who do you think you're fooling.

I used to. But you are right. I have lost interest in kids welfare...now I just find them annoying.

 

[paddymurphy]

Trump seems to think that all you have to do is to pick Juan up off the street and drive him to Nuevo Laredo. He seems to have forgotten details, like the constitutionally required trial, and conviction, first (for which we would most likely have to pay Juan's attorney).

The constitution is only for We The people.

The Constitution applies to everyone on American soil. look it up for yourself.

That'a recent libturd interpretation. For example, it never applied to Indians until they were made citizens.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Actually, dumbass, it in an interpretation that goes back to English Common law and which was the understanding of the founders when the used the term "natural born citizen" in setting forth the qualifications for President and was clearly the understanding of those who ratified the 14th Amendment. Why not go find a thread where they are discussing issues that you are not completely clueless on, as you are on this one.

 

[Nosmo King]

And what happens to our GNP once we vacuum 11 million undocumented immigrants from the pay rolls?

 

[paulitician]

Whatever it costs to restore the Law of the Land, it will be well worth it in the end. All nations in the world deport people in their nations illegally. And yes, even Mexico does it. The law is the law. And it's time to restore it.

 

[bedowin62]

Trump seems to think that all you have to do is to pick Juan up off the street and drive him to Nuevo Laredo. He seems to have forgotten details, like the constitutionally required trial, and conviction, first (for which we would most likely have to pay Juan's attorney).

The constitution is only for We The people.

The Constitution applies to everyone on American soil. look it up for yourself.

That'a recent libturd interpretation. For example, it never applied to Indians until they were made citizens.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Actually, dumbass, it in an interpretation that goes back to English Common law and which was the understanding of the founders when the used the term "natural born citizen" in setting forth the qualifications for President and was clearly the understanding of those who ratified the 14th Amendment. Why not go find a thread where they are discussing issues that you are not completely clueless on, as you are on this one.

we both know you're nothing but a boring loser engaging in misdirection.
that amendment was nothing more than a (Republican Party) attempt to protect recently-freed Black slaves from Democrats TRYING TO KILL THEM, and treating them as non-citizens

 

[paddymurphy]

Trump seems to think that all you have to do is to pick Juan up off the street and drive him to Nuevo Laredo. He seems to have forgotten details, like the constitutionally required trial, and conviction, first (for which we would most likely have to pay Juan's attorney).

The constitution is only for We The people.

The Constitution applies to everyone on American soil. look it up for yourself.

That'a recent libturd interpretation. For example, it never applied to Indians until they were made citizens.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

"But in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)44, the Supreme Court applied British common law (or customary law) to interpret the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court ruled that a “natural born citizen,” as mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, must be interpreted according to the standards set forth in an English ruling known as Calvin’s Case (1608)45. Under feudal law, children of friendly aliens owed allegiance to the sovereign in whose dominion they were born. This principle is known as jus solis (law of soil), in which citizenship attaches through the land in which one is born. The complementary principle of jus sanguinis (law of blood) extends citizenship through the nationality of a child’s parents. Although these principles were nowhere mentioned in the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, born in the United States to Chinese immigrants, had acquired birthright citizenship. The Court acknowledged that Ark’s parents were still subjects of the Chinese Emperor, and that Ark was a laborer otherwise ineligible for U.S. citizenship under the Chinese Exclusion Act. However, Ark’s parents had established a permanent domicile and legal residence in San Francisco, where he was born. Moreover, the Court held that the only purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment’s limiting phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” was to acknowledge the two exceptions to birthright citizenship recognized under common law. These were children born to foreign ambassadors or occupying enemies. Indians, said the Court, occupied a special category not recognized by common law."

So, 1898 is recent? 1608 is recent?

 

[bedowin62]

the misinterpretation of the amendment started in the 1950s or 60's. it was NEVER meant to address immigration law. it was for black people who were former slaves who had already been here, sometimes for their whole lives, generations of their families even, not for people who come here just to drop a baby out.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And what happens to our GNP once we vacuum 11 million undocumented immigrants from the pay rolls?

Payroll, taxes, property values, school funding, rents, GDP, you name it. They'd all take a hit, and not for the better.

 

[bedowin62]

Trump seems to think that all you have to do is to pick Juan up off the street and drive him to Nuevo Laredo. He seems to have forgotten details, like the constitutionally required trial, and conviction, first (for which we would most likely have to pay Juan's attorney).

The constitution is only for We The people.

The Constitution applies to everyone on American soil. look it up for yourself.

That'a recent libturd interpretation. For example, it never applied to Indians until they were made citizens.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

"But in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)44, the Supreme Court applied British common law (or customary law) to interpret the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court ruled that a “natural born citizen,” as mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, must be interpreted according to the standards set forth in an English ruling known as Calvin’s Case (1608)45. Under feudal law, children of friendly aliens owed allegiance to the sovereign in whose dominion they were born. This principle is known as jus solis (law of soil), in which citizenship attaches through the land in which one is born. The complementary principle of jus sanguinis (law of blood) extends citizenship through the nationality of a child’s parents. Although these principles were nowhere mentioned in the legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, born in the United States to Chinese immigrants, had acquired birthright citizenship. The Court acknowledged that Ark’s parents were still subjects of the Chinese Emperor, and that Ark was a laborer otherwise ineligible for U.S. citizenship under the Chinese Exclusion Act. However, Ark’s parents had established a permanent domicile and legal residence in San Francisco, where he was born. Moreover, the Court held that the only purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment’s limiting phrase, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” was to acknowledge the two exceptions to birthright citizenship recognized under common law. These were children born to foreign ambassadors or occupying enemies. Indians, said the Court, occupied a special category not recognized by common law."

So, 1898 is recent? 1608 is recent?

you should actually read your own stupidity moron. it "must be interpreted according to standars set forth in......................................THE YEAR 1608?????????????????????????????

WHY?? WHY "MUST" an amendment passed in 1868 reflect an English law dating from almost 200 years beore the country was founded, and ALMOST 300 YEARS AFTER THE ENGLISH LAW???

 

[PaintMyHouse]

the misinterpretation of the amendment started in the 1950s or 60's. it was NEVER meant to address immigration law. it was for black people who were former slaves who had already been here, sometimes for their whole lives, generations of their families even, not for people who come here just to drop a baby out.

Wong was in 1898, not 1950...

 

[bedowin62]

SO THIS LEFTARD IS ACTUALLY SAYING WE SHOULD HEED THIS LAW because it "must" be interpreted as set forth in ENGLISH FUEDAL LAW??? (READ IT ABOVE)



forward????

 

[bedowin62]

the misinterpretation of the amendment started in the 1950s or 60's. it was NEVER meant to address immigration law. it was for black people who were former slaves who had already been here, sometimes for their whole lives, generations of their families even, not for people who come here just to drop a baby out.

Wong was in 1898, not 1950...

no it wasnt you dullard. in the modern era it was a case in the 20th century where it was interpreted that way

 

[bedowin62]

for anybody with an open mind out there; this is why the whole country needs to get rid of Progressives in any position of power

 

[EatMorChikin]

And what happens to our GNP once we vacuum 11 million undocumented immigrants from the pay rolls?

We have 90 million unemployed Americans to fill that. Nobody buys the bullshit!

 

[paddymurphy]

And what happens to our GNP once we vacuum 11 million undocumented immigrants from the pay rolls?

Shrinks by a couple percent. And, in those states where there are more undocumented living, the effect on their gdp is even greater. There is an economic cost to deportation of all illegals beyond the ridiculous expense it would take to actually find all undocumented, prove in Court that they are not properly documented and then deport them.

 

[Nosmo King]

And what happens to our GNP once we vacuum 11 million undocumented immigrants from the pay rolls?

We have 90 million unemployed Americans to fill that. Nobody buys the bullshit!

90 million? Our population is 350,000,000. Figure half that number is underage. That leaves 175,000,000. Figure out of that 30% are retired, infirmed or otherwise not able to work. That leaves roughly 117,000,000. Remove your figure of 90,000,000 and you're telling us that approximately 27,000,000 out of our population of 350,000,000 are making our economy hum along.

Now, you were speaking of bullshit...

 

[Boss]

Having human DNA doesn't make you a person.

Makes you a human being who should have Constitutional rights.

Nope, not even close. Human DNA is as common as dirt, and about as worthy.

Sorry, but the only thing with human DNA is a human being. You are science illiterate.

I have a friend who recently had her tonsils removed. I bet if you did a test you'd find human DNA in those things. Her tonsils aren't human beings.

Did her tonsils come from a goat? Only humans can produce human DNA. If human DNA exists, a human created it. A fetus is a human. It is not a goat. It has it's own distinct human DNA.