Posted on 04/09/2007 8:35:35 AM PDT by kellynla
LOL! I hope Walter isn’t offended by the appellation, but I think he’s sweet too. :)
That was just a definition. That it fits you well is your problem.
Obviously you’re a big W fan. Fine. But you have to let Bush take criticism he deserves.
..you are very welcome OWF
Actually we don't need to do that. The 14th is often cited as the basis for "born here, citizen here" Here is section 1. which is the relevant part
Section 1. 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 State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Note the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." This is critical. This is ALREADY used to deny citizenship to children born to foreign diplomats in the USA, as they are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA. They are foreign nationals and not legal "immigrants" here (technically, they are on foreign soil while still in their embassies). It has been seriously proposed that we could simply pass a law, declaring all persons residing in the USA without legal residency are not "subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. Indeed, they are not, as they are not subjecting themselves to the most fundamental and primary laws of being here, the immigration statutes. This way, the cumbersome, lengthy, and SHOULD BE AVOIDED WHENEVER POSSIBLE process of amending the constitution could be avoided and we would not have the silly silly silly situation of someone illegal immgrant being a citizen because of an amendment wishing to forever enshrine the constitutional rights of ex-slaves.
He’s the best — a mighty fine gentleman and ever so sweet to me.
They have suceeded in ruining this thread, which was probably their whole purpose.
“You just wanted an excuse to call someone names...”
You’re right.. I’m busted. I’ve been lurking for years here on FR just for the right moment to unload my “windbag” on someone. Guilty as charged.
Get real
Your accusations have wilted away into oblivion................which is exactly where they belong.
But I'll tell you why I admire him and respect him so much.
He is a man of integrity and unquestioned character. He is courageous in fighting evil, when all others around him waver and falter. He has stood strong as no other President before him for the sanctity of human life. And he behaves honorably when others spit in his face.
His accusers on this forum should aim to be half the man he is. Even though he is WRONG about immigration.
..now you are making me blush—and I am not easily embarrassed ; - )
I kind of agree with that—It’s become an argument about the argument, rather an argument over the merits of the issue.
Now what other kinds of people like to do that to political debate.....hmmmmmm.....
W. on immigration again. Time to clean out my sock drawer.
Okay, I’ll stop now. GOOD to see you.
Methinks the 'getting real' needs to be done by you......
Your accusations are empty, your purpose is transparent, and your loss of this debate unambiguous.
Good day, taxed.
A true man of integrity, onyx! And a man of prayer as well.
..you girls have made my day
REAL MEN are easy to spot amongst the males...lol
A hearty AMEN to that, onyx!
..always a pleasure...
I admire Bush on certain issues as well. His stance on the WOT and Iraq are noble, and will be vindicated over time.
But let’s be honest...A man of integrity and “unquestioned character” is that way across the board, not on some or most issues. Bush’s job is to enforce the nations laws, a job he is not doing when it comes to U.S. Border Sovereignty and immigration. The laws are on the books, he chooses not to enforce them. After 6+ years, it’s fair to say that that’s his policy.
How much integrity and “unquestioned character” is involved in a policy of selective/non-enforcement of the nations laws?
Thanks again, sweet one. You’re a grand man!
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.