Posted on 08/20/2015 2:54:46 PM PDT by Biggirl
I agree, but the MSM and mob noise would say that some legislative or judicial decision is necessary to reverse our foolish course. It would become a huge issue, whichever way it proceeds, in the 2018 and 2020 elections.
Wrong again.
Visas have been required for immigration since the country was founded.
The statutes of which you speak simply qualified what decisions that the State Department could make.
The point is, at the time the 14th Amendment was enacted (and for decades later), there was no concept of "illegal" immigration--any foreigner who was present in the U.S. was here legally, because there were few (if any) restrictions on who could and could not be here.
>> “And, for what it’s worth, illegals are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States” <<
There you go again twisting the meaning of an amendment!
Those entering contrary to the laws of the US have not entered “under the jurisdiction.”
Get out of here! You are not one of us, you are a mendacious deceiver, seeking to weaken our nation of laws.
.
Thanks for proving that you are a mendacious idiot yet again!
Trump for President Carson’s Chief of Staff.
Do you have a cite for that?
(Of course not, since it's wrong.)
Carson has to be the candidate that has the least chance of all of getting elected. (and he is a very likable guy)
Those entering contrary to the laws of the US have not entered “under the jurisdiction.”
Hey, you moron, if you're going to call me a "mendacious deceiver" about the meaning of the 14th Amendment, you might want to make sure you at least get the language of the 14th Amendment right. Hint: the phrase "under the jurisdiction" does not exist in the Amendment.
By now all know what you are and why you’re here.
Crafting questions of the caliber seen in Genesis chapter 3.
Here you go: List of United States Immigration Legislation
You'll note that the 1875 Page Act (which restricted immigration by "undesirables", including prostitutes and forced laborers) was the first law to restrict immigration to the U.S. Since a moron like you may be in need of a history lesson, the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. Meaning that, as I said, at the time the 14th Amendment was adopted, there was no such thing as an "illegal" immigrant.
If you have a cite that shows that I'm wrong, then by all means, provide it. Otherwise, buzz off.
Crafting questions of the caliber seen in Genesis chapter 3.
I present facts. You respond with insults. And you call ME the mendacious idiot. Ha!
.
You’re out in the open now.
We all have seen what you are and what your agenda is.
All the crafty misdirecting questions in the world are not going to work. We’re going to fix the crap that you people have dumped on us.
.
A Supreme Court majority that was able to discover a Constitutional right to homosexual marriage hidden in the emanations from penumbra will have no problem discovering a Constitutional right to anchor baby citizenship hidden in the 14th Amendment.
We all have seen what you are and what your agenda is.
All the crafty misdirecting questions in the world are not going to work. We’re going to fix the crap that you people have dumped on us.
What on earth are you talking about? "Crafty misdirecting questions"??? I have stated my position--that at the time the 14th Amendment was enacted, there were no laws restricting immigration to the U.S., and therefore the concept of "illegal" aliens did not exist yet--and (here's the important part) provided citations that backed up my statement. You, on the other hand, responded not by explaining why I was wrong or providing any FACTS to show that I'm wrong, but rather by calling me an idiot.
I think by any fair reading it is YOU who is "out in the open now," and that we have all seen what YOU are and what your agenda is (lying and insulting).
Have a good night.
It’s only immigration policy enforced by Dem or the Obama Administration. Most of the 20th century, families were deported back to their country of origins. The footnote by Brennen in Plyler v. Doe can be brushed aside by future Administrations since the Supreme Court has never ruled on anchor babies, and Congress can pass positive law under their plenary power of naturalization under the US Constitution include Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.
Levin articulated what is in the 14th for the third day in a row. There ain’t no such thing as an anchorite becoming a citizen of US.
How about this def ?
Anchorites= Babies (baby pl) born in the US of foreign citizens who are foreign subjects or of emmigrants entering here illegally. When born in the US of both parents who are not US citizens do not become citizens of the US period. Hence should not be entitled to the benefits and protection of being one.
D@mn straight only a president can do that.
How did I miss that :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.