Killer as hero

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 minute ago, jaybird18c said:

No you didn’t. You made an assertion followed by a F-ing asshole personal remark. Here’s what you said. I’m waiting on an actual response. 

“Because a law exists that precludes this. This law has not (yet) been challenged on a constitutional basis and is therefor in force.

Hard to imagine this needs to be explained to an American. Do you not understand how things work in your country?”

right. so that's when you start doing some research and find out that:

Kids born to tourists in the US are indeed eligible for citizenship.

The kids of foreign diplomats are NOT eligible.

See, this is how you would have learned. If only you figured out how google works.

[jaybird18c 22]

1 minute ago, jakee said:

Well that’s just a bunch of bollocks, isn’t it? What is a foreign government’s jurisdiction over a person not in their country?

Your country no longer has jurisdiction over you when you visit America?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 minute ago, jakee said:

Well that’s just a bunch of bollocks, isn’t it? What is a foreign government’s jurisdiction over a person not in their country?

You are taking it too literal. It is exactly that little sentence that is going to be discussed though.

[jaybird18c 22]

3 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

right. so that's when you start doing some research and find out that:

Kids born to tourists in the US are indeed eligible for citizenship.

The kids of foreign diplomats are NOT eligible.

See, this is how you would have learned. If only you figured out how google works.

It’s incumbent on the individual making the assertion to back it up.

Unless you’re just one of those douchebags who like to just try and “look” smart.

It’s easy for “Low T” types to “appear” smart though. I’ll give you that. You know…the rather pale, malnourished look…kind of nerdy.

Edited December 16, 2024 by jaybird18c

[jakee 1,489]

6 minutes ago, jaybird18c said:

I’m pretty sure not too. Because the current view isn’t what the Constitution says. Hence, the discussion on the constitutionality. Roe v. Wade wasn’t constitutional either. Therefore, it’s been aborted. 

Every court except the one populated by people chosen solely for their willingness to revoke Roe thought that Roe was constitutional. 
 

Just as an aside, you righties have been on another level since popping back up after the election. The avalanche of hypocritical partisan bat-shit crazy that’s been on display over the last month has been truly special.

[jakee 1,489]

2 minutes ago, jaybird18c said:

Your country no longer has jurisdiction over you when you visit America?

What jurisdiction do they have?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 minute ago, jaybird18c said:

It’s incumbent on the individual making the assertion to back it up.

I am neither in a court of law, nor running a science experiment.

Just a low T Canadian schooling a macho American special forces hero on his own country.

[jaybird18c 22]

1 minute ago, jakee said:

Every court except the one populated by people chosen solely for their willingness to revoke Roe thought that Roe was constitutional. 
 

Just as an aside, you righties have been on another level since popping back up after the election. The avalanche of hypocritical partisan bat-shit crazy that’s been on display over the last month has been truly special.

Are you crying? There’s no crying in this…

[jaybird18c 22]

1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

I am neither in a court of law, nor running a science experiment.

Just a low T Canadian schooling a macho American special forces hero on his own country.

I get your unwillingness to back up your own bullshit. It’s embarrassing. But all things are forgotten in time. You’ll be alright. I will too as long as I don’t catch fire or something and have to rely on you to piss on me to put it out.

[jaybird18c 22]

3 minutes ago, jakee said:

What jurisdiction do they have?

Lawful.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 minute ago, jaybird18c said:

I get your unwillingness to back up your own bullshit. It’s embarrassing. But all things are forgotten in time. You’ll be alright. I will too as long as I don’t catch fire or something and have to rely on you to piss on me to put it out.

Section 101(a)(20), 103, 262, 264 INA and 8 CFR 101.3, 101.4 and 264.2.

Let me know if you need help with the words.

[jaybird18c 22]

1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

Section 101(a)(20), 103, 262, 264 INA and 8 CFR 101.3, 101.4 and 264.2.

Let me know if you need help with the words.

Is that the one which will be challenged for constitutionality?

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 minute ago, jaybird18c said:

Is that the one which will be challenged for constitutionality?

I think it is incumbent on those who want to ask questions to first read what they are seeking to clarify.

[jaybird18c 22]

Just now, SkyDekker said:

I think it is incumbent on those who want to ask questions to first read what they are seeking to clarify.

 

Just now, SkyDekker said:

I think it is incumbent on those who want to ask questions to first read what they are seeking to clarify.

Ok. I read it. Please quote the part which backs up your assertion.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Just now, jaybird18c said:

 

Ok. I read it. Please quote the part which backs up your assertion.

I did. Your inability understand isn't my problem.

[jaybird18c 22]

25 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

I did. Your inability understand isn't my problem.

I say again. I read the code you cited. Did you? Why can’t you quote the part which backs up your assertion? Also, what’s your home DZ and are you there much? I’d like very much to make road trip (when I say “road trip,” I mean fly) and come jump with you sometime. I’d even be willing to set an article of clothing on fire to test a hypothesis.

Edited December 16, 2024 by jaybird18c

[SkyDekker 1,465]

22 minutes ago, jaybird18c said:

I say again. I read the code you cited. Did you? Why can’t you quote the part which backs up your assertion? Also, what’s your home DZ and are you there much? I’d like very much to make road trip and come jump with you sometime. I’d even be willing to set an article of clothing on fire to test a hypothesis.

See, here is your problem. You need to interpret the words. Or at least have the ability to.

Your veiled threats I am sure make other people quake in their boots.

[jaybird18c 22]

1 minute ago, SkyDekker said:

See, here is your problem. You need to interpret the words. Or at least have the ability to.

Your veiled threats I am sure make other people quake in their boots.

Everyone has to interpret words. What are you talking about? But you haven’t actually quoted anything specific to interpret. Regarding the other, “Low T” in effect, I guess.

Edited December 16, 2024 by jaybird18c

[kallend 2,026]

I wonder how an Irish** citizen accused of capital murder in, say, Texas would fare if he told theTexas judge that his court had no jurisdiction and therefore had to release him to be tried in Ireland..

 

** or any other non US nationality

By JB's reasoning, all these executions were illegal

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-row/foreign-nationals/executions-of-foreign-nationals

 

Edited December 16, 2024 by kallend

[jaybird18c 22]

SkyDekker may be a little like Kyle, but he CAN dance!  

 

[jaybird18c 22]

3 minutes ago, kallend said:

I wonder how an Irish** citizen accused of capital murder in, say, Texas would fare if he told theTexas judge that his court had no jurisdiction and therefore had to release him to be tried in Ireland..

 

** or any other non US nationality

Catch up bro. You’re interpretation of what jurisdiction means isn’t what the original author of the amendment meant.

[nigel99 466]

49 minutes ago, jakee said:

Well that’s just a bunch of bollocks, isn’t it? What is a foreign government’s jurisdiction over a person not in their country?

The whole argument reminds me of the ‘sovereign citizens’ nonsense that is going on. 

I’d venture to say that everyone against birthright citizenship makes an exception for rich white illegal immigration’s. I’d have a bit more respect for the anti illegals if they were clamouring for Elon and Melania to be kicked out.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

1 minute ago, jaybird18c said:

You’re interpretation of what jurisdiction means isn’t what the original author of the amendment meant.

who do you think the author was?

[jaybird18c 22]

2 minutes ago, nigel99 said:

The whole argument reminds me of the ‘sovereign citizens’ nonsense that is going on. 

I’d venture to say that everyone against birthright citizenship makes an exception for rich white illegal immigration’s. I’d have a bit more respect for the anti illegals if they were clamouring for Elon and Melania to be kicked out.

What does your liberal clan do, tag in, tag out, or something? SkyDekker…don’t cry bro. If you can’t back up your stuff, don’t worry about it.

Edited December 16, 2024 by jaybird18c

[jaybird18c 22]

You gotta admit the Kyle stuff was funny though, right? That’s a great movie!