billvon 3,063 #26 October 31, 2018 >Would love to know how many Republican skydivers reported a dropzone for >employing illegal packers, which would be about every one of them. Rush: "I just heard Orla and Pedro were ILLEGALS! Packing! At our DZ! I'm calling INS!" Ron: "Well, call them on Pedro. Orla's pack jobs are awesome and she only charges $5. I'll make sure she's not here when INS shows up." Rush: "Good thinking." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ryoder 1,590 #27 October 31, 2018 billvon>With Trump saying he is signing an EO shortly to eliminate the birthright citizenship . . . So where do you think they will deport Barron to - Slovenia or Russia? Well, the constitution prohibits Congress or the states from enacting ex post facto legislation, but says nothing about ex post facto amendments. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ex_post_facto I think a retroactive amendment ending birthright citizenship would needlessly create headaches for years."There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 2,246 #28 October 31, 2018 QuoteThis whole immigration thing is about skin colour and nothing else. So many people from shit hole countries. Where are all the Norwegians?Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,558 #29 October 31, 2018 BIGUN***The 14th amendment is as follows: 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. With Trump saying he is signing an EO shortly to eliminate the birthright citizenship it will not be long until the supreme court will be taking this case on since a stay will be issued within hours of it being signed. With the recent majority shift will this be a easy decision for them to agree the president has the ability to do anything via EO or not? Thoughts from the Right: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/ending-birthright-citizenship-would-be-as-unconstitutional-as-it-is-unproductive There is an argument to be made for the first part of the amendment. "all persons being born or naturalized in the United States," read as a domiciled citizen - not as a tourist or illegal immigrant showing up to have a kid and, Ta Da!!! My kid is an American. Go on then, try and make that argument...Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,399 #30 October 31, 2018 The argument would stem around "jus soli" vs. "jus sanguinis."Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #31 October 31, 2018 BIGUNThe argument would stem around "jus soli" vs. "jus sanguinis." Jus soli is the current legal concept governing birthright. Nothing in that amendment would suggest that it should be jus sanguinis (meaning based on bloodline). But, more than open to read your reasoning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,399 #32 October 31, 2018 The argument for Jus Soli has been fought and won and upheld by SCOTUS (You're familiar with Kim Wong Ark). "IF" the 14th amendment were challenged in favor of Jus Sanguinis - there are those that would "argue" that SCOTUS ruling hasn't been tested in over a hundred years. There is a lengthy treatise in the Cornell Law Library that explains how our forefathers would have based the 14th amendment on British Common Law (and that they themselves had at one time been British Citizens and how they made the transfer to American citizenship themselves. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 My opinion, is that it will not change and just as Speaker Ryan said yesterday - it would need a constitutional amendment.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #33 October 31, 2018 BIGUNThe argument for Jus Soli has been fought and won and upheld by SCOTUS (You're familiar with Kim Wong Ark). "IF" the 14th amendment were challenged in favor of Jus Sanguinis - there are those that would "argue" that SCOTUS ruling hasn't been tested in over a hundred years. There is a lengthy treatise in the Cornell Law Library that explains how our forefathers would have based the 14th amendment on British Common Law (and that they themselves had at one time been British Citizens and how they made the transfer to American citizenship themselves. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 My opinion, is that it will not change and just as Speaker Ryan said yesterday - it would need a constitutional amendment. Are you, as an ardent supporter of the 2nd amendment, really arguing that one should look at the constitution based on what the forefathers might have thought and not what is actually written? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,558 #34 October 31, 2018 BIGUNThe argument would stem around "jus soli" vs. "jus sanguinis." Ok, so again, please try and make that argument. Y'know, bearing in mind the amendment clearly states jus soli and does not mention jus sanguinis...Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,558 #35 October 31, 2018 BIGUNThe argument for Jus Soli has been fought and won and upheld by SCOTUS (You're familiar with Kim Wong Ark). "IF" the 14th amendment were challenged in favor of Jus Sanguinis - there are those that would "argue" that SCOTUS ruling hasn't been tested in over a hundred years. And why do you think it hasn't been tested for 100 years? Maybe because it's one of the simplest, plainest bits of English in the whole text, and undeniably means what it says?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,399 #36 October 31, 2018 QuoteAre you, as an ardent supporter of the 2nd amendment, really arguing that one should look at the constitution based on what the forefathers might have thought and not what is actually written? SCOTUS has already done that - just as they did with the 14th amendment.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Niki1 1 #37 November 1, 2018 GeorgiaDon***Regardless of the cynical timing I think I actually agree that the 14th needs a change.But it needs to be done properly - not by EO just to get votes.Apart from the obvious issue of granting the President the power to unilaterally change the Constitution by executive order (leaving essentially no daylight between "President" and "Dear Ruler") How many generations back would someone have to be able to document their US citizen ancestors? Don How about 50 generations? Then the only real citizens would be what the Canadians call the First Nations. We're all immigrants.Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done. Louis D Brandeis Where are we going and why are we in this basket? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,063 #38 November 1, 2018 >How about 50 generations? Then the only real citizens would be what the Canadians call >the First Nations. And only Elizabeth Warren would be qualified to be president. But as someone else mentioned, this is an election cycle prank. It won't go anywhere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #39 November 1, 2018 I agree this is an election stunt. Someone at the White House, however, is purposely trying to change the language around illegal immigrants. All the Fox talking heads and WH surrogates are now refering to them as invaders. Which happens to be one of only two exceptions the Supreme Court carved out for birthright citizenship under the 14th amendment. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #40 November 1, 2018 Nationalist Invaders Enemy of the people only believe me Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bigfalls 111 #41 November 1, 2018 Wow, I read the whole thing, quite interesting. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #42 November 1, 2018 BIGUNThe argument for Jus Soli has been fought and won and upheld by SCOTUS (You're familiar with Kim Wong Ark). "IF" the 14th amendment were challenged in favor of Jus Sanguinis - there are those that would "argue" that SCOTUS ruling hasn't been tested in over a hundred years. There is a lengthy treatise in the Cornell Law Library that explains how our forefathers would have based the 14th amendment on British Common Law (and that they themselves had at one time been British Citizens and how they made the transfer to American citizenship themselves. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 My opinion, is that it will not change and just as Speaker Ryan said yesterday - it would need a constitutional amendment. Not only that, but those who base their xenophobic opinion on the "subject to the jurisdiction.. " phrase really haven't thought through what it would mean to claim that the US has no jurisdiction over children of immigrants, legal or illegal.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,063 #43 November 2, 2018 Interesting. Marco Rubio is attacking democrats for wanting to keep the 14th amendment. He was born in 1971 in the US. His parents did not become citizens until 1974. So how would he apply for US citizenship? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #44 November 3, 2018 QuoteWhere are all the Norwegians? Mostly in Norway where they enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #45 November 3, 2018 tkhayes Quote Where are all the Norwegians? Mostly in Norway where they enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world.... Funny though...to gain citizenship in Norway you must learn their language. We should do that here!Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #46 November 3, 2018 you only have to pass a minimum language test in Norway..... just like you have to do here in the USA. In case you were not aware, yes, in the USA, you have to have minimum english language skills to become a citizen. Even i had to do that. Oral AND written Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phil1111 1,149 #47 November 3, 2018 airdvr *** Quote Where are all the Norwegians? Mostly in Norway where they enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world.... Funny though...to gain citizenship in Norway you must learn their language. We should do that here! Good idea, you should learn the Caddoan language, Plains Cree, Iroquois, etc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,063 #48 November 3, 2018 >Funny though...to gain citizenship in Norway you must learn their language. We should >do that here! And what will the penalty be if you refuse to learn Navajo? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
gowlerk 2,246 #49 November 3, 2018 QuoteFunny though...to gain citizenship in Norway you must learn their language. Unimpressed We should do that here! Despite the frequent calls from many, often right wing zenophobes, there is no official language in the USA. QuoteThe United States technically has no official language. Although English is the most commonly spoken language, there is actually no official language in the United States at the federal level.Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
airdvr 210 #50 November 3, 2018 billvon>Funny though...to gain citizenship in Norway you must learn their language. We should >do that here! And what will the penalty be if you refuse to learn Navajo? So it's easier to become a citizen here than in Norway.Please don't dent the planet. Destinations by Roxanne Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
