The Market Ticker
Rss Icon RSS available
"If you can fine me for not wearing a mask why is buttfucking without a condom not a felony?" - Tickerguy
You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
Comments on Not So Supreme (Podcast, Audio Only)
User: Not logged on
Top Forum Top Login FAQ Register Clear Cookie
Showing Page 2 of 3  First123Last
User Info Not So Supreme (Podcast, Audio Only) in forum [Market-Ticker]
Loonster
Posts: 94
Incept: 2012-10-28

West Michigan
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Erroldo, I think the Jews had it right. The maternal lineage is the only one that can be proved. Natural Born Citizens should be only those whose mother was a citizen at time of birth.



The problems are not just confined to the senate. Representatives are now like mini-senators. We now have 1 representative per 708,000.

I propose the following amendment: Increase the number of representatives to 1 per 25,000 citizens. Now this would increase the house to 12,336 representatives and it would continue to increase with every census.

An entirely impractical number to send to DC. GOOD. They can now live in their own districts (or state capital) and vote remotely. Some states may even do away with state representatives and require them to have a dual function of state/us representative.
Tickerguy
Posts: 168083
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Burya_rubenstein -- Prior to the 17th Amendment that was in fact essentially the case. The legislature of a given state could do what they wanted, and there was some variation.

----------
I don't give a flying **** if you're offended.
Bikemechanicdeux
Posts: 41
Incept: 2020-03-29

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
The constitution lays out the requirements for PRESIDENT with natural born citizenship. BOTH Parents, and the forefathers definition is what matters of Natural Born. If you believe it is a "living constituion" then none of that matters to you, just change it la de da. Which is the democratic POV.

Kamala Harris is an ANCHOR baby. Neither parent was a citizen. She can't serve as President. Yet she is there in a position to take the top seat????,.Talk about the turmoil if Nancy's plan works. Biden "wins",, then is removed for medical soon after he takes office. Kamala is next in line. HOWEVER there will be lawsuits over her status as not being Natural born.

Who get the seat then...... Nancy.

WHY because imo, we have lost control of who gets to run.

WHo VETTES the requirements to run. Judge, court, NO it is each PARTY. All in cover of darkness.

Ted Cruz (and I spent months tracking his history) appears to be Canadian. So no President, not even Senator etc, unless he took the test. if he is hiding his life history. Ted refuses to release his birth records. And the Repubs did not press it. An interesting story about Ted. Long ago before he ran, He was talking to another trough eater, and said Ted why don'y you run for President and Ted replied, I can't he replied,..the questioner asked why. Ted did not reply. Ted then locked up his records, and later did run for President and to date refuses to reveal them. How can that happen, see above.

By the by, the history of Ted's mother is at the least interesting. NOT as much as OBozo's. WHO is Teds real father. MOther went to Great Britain then Canada. IT is murky as hell and Ted will not answer. WHY, just release it Ted.

Will Nancy still be speaker, Interesting interview yesterday with Wolf Blitzer and Nancy Pee loosely. Nancy seems to have gone out of favor. Blitzer was all over her for not taking the Trump 1.8 stimulus package. Watch his war room show from yesterday with her. Never thought I would see what I watched. wow. Nancy at the least will not lead congress for being stupid enough even her own side has turned it seems.

Also note the turn by major Media on Trump in reporting. Very apparent back off imo. to some extent. Lets hope so, was not looking forward to a civil war. If Antifa does not appear again soon. big Tell imo.



Erroldo
Posts: 75
Incept: 2013-09-12

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Bike - Myself is an immigrant citizen. the taught definition of natural born is said to not be clearly defined ion the docs beyond that one is to be born on US soil. So by this definition, anchor babies can be pres. If the const. clearly and originally laid out that BOTH parents MUST be citizens(born or naturalized?) at time of birth, then this disqualifies Harris and if Obama's dad was not, that would also remove Obama too. Why do I raise this point? I want to know if I am to live or die the rule of law will decide that and not what the judge or jury think is popular at the moment.
I don't even see a ounce of qualification discussion in the media as defined by the const.
Erroldo
Posts: 75
Incept: 2013-09-12

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
From article 1, section 2:
"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."
The key here is defining who is a natural born citizen. To that I found this:
"Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship. This type of citizenship is referred to as birthright citizenship.

There is some debate over whether or not one may also be a natural born citizen if, despite a birth on foreign soil, U.S. citizenship immediately passes from the person's parents.
"
So based on above Harris would be a "natural born" citizen.
So the courts seems to have settled that definition for us?
Tickerguy
Posts: 168083
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Where did you find that "citation" to Wong Kim Ark? You do know what that case was about right? So if you do, then you DELIBERATELY lied right here.

That means you're about to get banhammered. I have read that ENTIRE decision, and that is not what it says in plain English.

That bull**** was run with regard to Obama, and destroyed at that time.

----------
I don't give a flying **** if you're offended.
Erroldo
Posts: 75
Incept: 2013-09-12

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Karl, you missed my point. It was never clear to me natural born citizen definition until you post on on H and O not being eligible. prompted my inquiry and posted what I found. Not that Wong settled natural born citizen definition by itself, but the whole document had several citings on English common law and what was the definition of natural born at the time of transition from english to us rule as well as common law definition that rolls into adoption during change over when the constitution was written.
Here is a recent link: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal....
from the many citings I see, it was accepted that a person born under the british realm of foreign parents was a natural subject of the king and accepted that persons born of foreign parents in the united states was naturan born citizens. May have to the entire articles and the many justice arguments.
Tickerguy
Posts: 168083
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Wong settled exactly NOTHING about that issue. Zero.

The holding was that he was a CITIZEN. Not a natural born citizen. You LIED.

Those two words appear in exactly TWO qualifications for office -- President and (because the VP takes the office if President is unable to serve) the VP. That's it.

The FIRST rule in construction of a Statute (and the Constitution is the highest of same) is that THERE ARE NO SUPERFLUOUS WORDS.

That is, no word is present that does not have meaning and no word is present that has meaning expressed by another word.

The PURPOSE of these two words is also clear; since the President is the Commander in Chief and said person is the civilian head of the military, superior to all Generals or other members of same, he or she must NOT have any form of divided allegiance.

A person who is born to non-citizens is ineligible with one exception, which was ALSO specifically delineated; those who were born of non-nationals prior the establishment of the Constitution were specifically exempted -- because, obviously, they had to be. The purpose of that exemption confirms and underlines the reason for those two words. Again, THERE ARE NO SUPERFLUOUS WORDS IN A STATUTE.

The clause specifically is:
Quote:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been Fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Note that all those present in the US AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTION were both citizens and exempted from the no-foreign-allegiance test because it was impossible.

THE EXEMPTION IS OF NO REQUIREMENT OR VALUE UNLESS "NATURAL BORN" MEANS "BORN OF CITIZEN PARENTS" BECAUSE AT THE TIME OF THE RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITTUION THERE WERE NO SUCH PERSONS IN THE NATION. ALL SUCH PERSONS WERE CITIZENS BUT BORN UNDER FOREIGN ALLEGIANCE. THOSE WORDS WOULD HAVE HAD ZERO VALUE AND THE RULES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION DO NOT PERMIT READING IT THAT WAY.

You can hold ANY office except that of President or VP if you are born of one or both non-citizen parents. You are still a citizen under the 14th Amendment, but not a NATURAL BORN citizen. Note that the 14th Amendment does NOT contain THOSE TWO WORDS. Again, the rules of Statutory Construction are clear and NOT suggestions -- words that are omitted that could be operative to modify a clause are deemed intentionally omitted.

And finally, you obviously cannot qualify for the exemption since nobody is alive that meets the qualifications; all of such persons died a hell of a long time ago.

----------
I don't give a flying **** if you're offended.

Expat_tom
Posts: 42
Incept: 2020-07-06

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Erroldo: It seems to me the larger issue with Wong is not the question of 'Natural Born' but the question of 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'

This case is a prime example of where the Left and the Right are speaking too different languages...the Left is saying that Wong has settled the citizen question and is trying to expand it to include the 'natural born' question, and the Right is saying that it hasn't even settled the 'subject' because his parents were here LEGALLY.

Everyone that I have discussed this with has made it quite clear that they believe the Supreme Court has never made it clear that illegal aliens children born here, which how constitute ten to thirty million people, should have ever had citizenship in the first place and what to do with them.

But there isn't a good answer, Miller has wanted to at the very least stop the policy of treating new children born here as citizens, but then it opens a large can of worms for anyone born and raised here for like the past forty or fifty years.

I don't see a good solution when the Left is pushing harder and harder to expand the meaning and shift the argument, it's just making the Right double down and eventually will bring the issue to a head in a way that will not be pretty for anyone involved.

If the Courts suddenly say: 'they are never citizens in the first place' when we are already two or maybe three generations in, it is a huge legal quagmire, just like trying to go back and undo any legal changes that were put in under Obama if we suddenly decide 'nope, he wasn't really a citizen after all' or worse, future legal changes by allowing future Presidents of divided loyalty.

These are questions that need to be answered but they will probably end up destroying the country when we get the answers because not everyone, and maybe no one is going to like them when the come.
Kikknback
Posts: 83
Incept: 2020-03-17

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Erroldo wrote..
The key here is defining who is a natural born citizen. To that I found this:
"Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship. This type of citizenship is referred to as birthright citizenship.


The bolded and underlined in the quote above proves 100% they CANNOT be "natural born citizens"...BECAUSE the communists ALWAYS ignore the fact they ARE NOT and CANNOT be subject to its JURISDICTION.

They are subject to the JURISDICTION of their PARENTS COUNTRY THE PARENTS ARE CITIZENS OF, NOT THE JURISDICTION OF THE USA.

They are ILLEGAL ALIENS, whose parents are breaking the law of the land, when they are born here while their parents are residing here illegally.

To think a criminal actually GAINS something or is gifted citizenship while breaking the law is insane.

So they CANNOT be citizens according to the English language if READ correctly.

Erroldo
Posts: 75
Incept: 2013-09-12

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
So if I read your info correct, you implied that during the adoption, those present were citizens. Based on common law at the time they would be, even if born of alien parents as the country was just formed out of war and thus those that remain would be citizens, hence qualified. Now the addition of "natural born" was to imply anyone born of the lineage of those when the country was formed or born of US citizens in the future whether said parents became citizens by birth or by the mechanism allowed under us law(naturalization).

That is a reasonable extension of the events into the future as to who is considered a "natural born" citizen. In that case both O and H would be citizens only, not natural born, under such an extended definition.

The little I find from a few law web pages I dug into does not make this fine point, but leave me with the conclusion from what is written there that a "natural born" citizen is one born on us soil, which frankly "almost"
include anchor babies.
I am looking at this with an open mind as I dont have a preconceived notion of who a "natural born" citizen is. Yeah I read a bunch of web texts that says born in the US, but digging further. That does not mean the popular view is the right one. If there is error on O and H qualifying it should be a bigger debate, or if there is none, maybe I need to dig some more. I am just more curious now...
Eleua
Posts: 16816
Incept: 2007-07-05
A True American Patriot!
N 47.72/ W 122.55
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Agreed that anchor babies are not US citizens.

My wife was born to UK citizens that moved from Peru, just prior to the Hart-Cellar Act passing. They came here under green cards, and were considered permanent residents when she was born. Her older sister was born in Peru to UK citizens, and was NEVER a US citizen. Her parents subsequently became naturalized US citizens and remained in the US until they died.

As I read it, my wife was born to UK citizens that were subject to the jurisdiction of the US, since they were permanent residents at the time.

As I understand it, that makes her a citizen, but not necessarily a "natural born" citizen, since her parents were not citizens.

Harris was born to non-US citizens that were here on temporary visas. That is a YUGE difference. They also moved her to Canada prior to her becoming an adult.

John McCain was born to US citizens abroad. That makes him a "natural born" citizen.

I was born in the US to US citizens, going back several generations. That makes me a "natural born" citizen, since I have no natural or easy allegiance to any other power.



All that being said, if the USSC or Congress ever acted to remove any ambiguity on this, and ruled that anchor babies, and their issue are NOT citizens, it is a ****ing hairball, the likes of which would burn the country to ash - overnight. This is what we get for not being vigilant on what the laws mean and WHY they are there.

It is preposterous (and the debates over the 14th discuss this) to grant tremendous benefits for an openly illegal act. Congress has always been able to say who and who isn't a citizen. The 14th was clearly passed to settle the issue of recently freed slaves and their citizenship. It was not a call out to the world to see if they can outwit the Border Patrol.

If the US Congress allowed you into this country, with the intent that you were going to stay here and sever all allegiance to your former sovereign, your children would be granted citizenship. If not, then no.

Hart-Cellar
Univ of California v Bakke
Plyler v Doe

Any of them should have brought about instant civil unrest. All three gutted the entire concept of citizenship and racial equality guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

This is the main reason I think that when the boog starts (for real), it will not stop until the population of the US goes below 250million, and possibly to 180. Multi-racial multiculturalism is a guaranteed war.

Allowing anchor babies (status quo) will kill the country in 20 years.
"Fixing the glitch" will kill it this year.

The difference is the first method also includes the salt needed to ensure there is no rebirth. The second does not.

----------
Diversity + proximity = WAR
Until bullets fly and people die, nothing is going to change.
Once you see what the problem is, you can't unsee it.
Kikknback
Posts: 83
Incept: 2020-03-17

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
John Armor Bingham was very specific on what "natural born citizen" means when he spoke on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:"[4] [5] [6]

"I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the JURISDICTION of the United States of PARENTS not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN"..."

John Armor Bingham was the author of the 14th amendment, so HE clearly and fully understood what "natural born citizen" meant, and clearly stated it in the congressional archives.

As they say in Poker, here is the NUTS: of PARENTS not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty

Illegal ALIENS owe their allegiance to the foreign country they came from, not the USA.

CHECKMATE
Erroldo
Posts: 75
Incept: 2013-09-12

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Kikknback, so in that case no one born to immigrants before said immigrants are naturalized would be a natural born citizen. Citizen of the us YES, but natural born, no, if I use the reasoning that legal alien immigrants and NOT subject to the US jurisdictions. That would raise the question, what jurisdiction are legal immigrants in the US subjected to?
Ignoring the illegals for a moment as those are law breakers and none of the illegals should even be considered, much less part of the discussion.
Is anyone born on US soil subject to US jurisdictions under US law, despite what parent country may claim? I hope this discussion gain more traction and other legal experts can weigh in. I am sure I will uncover more as I dig into this topic.
Expat_tom
Posts: 42
Incept: 2020-07-06

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Kikknback: I agree with a plain reading however I also believe that once the law has treated them as citizens it can't and shouldn't be revoked (this incidentally is the way that the Supreme Court treats official actions of an office who's head is later disqualified, it doesn't revoke every action that office has undertaken) because it becomes very dangerous and shouldn't be undertaken as lightly as trying to get the Supremes to take the case and just make a ruling as there is no guarantee they would apply the same logic, so it needs to be fixed by The Congress.

If we take a shortcut and it blows up in our faces, I see two problems.

First off, if we suddenly say: 'you were never a citizen' it creates a climate of insurrection as millions of people who don't believe they have any sort of divided loyalty, were born and raised here and see themselves as Patriots, suddenly finds themselves as unwelcome aliens in a land they called their home.

Those suddenly stateless people are ripe to take extreme action to rectify a situation where they feel they have lost all civil rights through no crime of their own.

And second, if it does lead to insurrection, where do you draw the lines?

What if both of someone's parents were Anchor Babies, they were treated as citizens, always believed they were and now the state is telling them, it is going to come after them because of their Grandparents crimes?

It is a recipe for either Civil War or Holocaust.
Mangymutt
Posts: 1736
Incept: 2015-05-03

Vancouver WA
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Erroldo
Quote:
Why do I raise this point?


Quote:
I want to know if I am to live or die the rule of law will decide that and not what the judge or jury think is popular at the moment.

If I am reading that correctly; You would like to know what the rule of law is not popular opinion.

Slightly over an hour later you write.

Quote:
from the many citings I see, it was accepted that a person born under the british realm of foreign parents was a natural subject of the king and accepted that persons born of foreign parents in the united states was naturan born citizens.


Can I assume by "citing" you mean "popular opinion"? that accepted the dual natural born citizenship? Or are the "citing(s)" you refer to legal judgements made by the U.S. Supreme court?


I have 3 children, 2 of which are born by the same mother, 2 of which are born by the same father. My "daughter" I have known her entire life, I visited her in the hospital when she was first born, I changed her diapers and have been there for her every step of the way. However her mother was NOT a citizen at the time of her birth, nor was the man she was married to at the time. Since I had a son close to her daughter's age we spent a lot of time together. Her mother got divorced and we got married. In every sense of the word she IS my daughter.

Shortly after her mother and I got married we had a son.

Why can my son run for president but not my daughter? Because neither of her parents were born here, while one of his was.

By their own admission neither Obama nor Harris have legal standing to be president. And Piglosi who is dusting off the 25th amendment knows this.


----------
"It's just a shot" - Gates
Kennington
Posts: 96
Incept: 2013-09-12

Pittsburgh, Pa
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Not sure if any of you have seen or noticed the recent purging of hundreds if not thousands of accounts off of YouTube...things are really getting scary out there for sure!
Tickerguy
Posts: 168083
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
@Erroldo -- Correct.

Neither Obama or Harris is eligible.

For that matter neither is Rubio, which I pointed out when he was running. He is ineligible for the same reason.

That doesn't mean he can't be a Senator; he can. But those two additional qualifying words have meaning; there are no words, by definition, in any statute that do not, and the Constitution is simply the "highest" statute in any nation.

----------
I don't give a flying **** if you're offended.
Bikemechanicdeux
Posts: 41
Incept: 2020-03-29

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Mangy Mutt,

Because that is your story, you are not looking to see how such mariages can be arranged and groomed over periods Time to take that office. That is the reason imo. The forefathers were well aware of court espionage among other countries to do so. At the top King/Queen. Also through the Court of the King/Queen. All in an attempt to take over countries without firing a shot.

Also in my reading of John Adams by John McCoullough this also has an effect on citizenry.

During the war the army/militia was small 3% or so.

This left those that did nothing, the many who worked against the British and for the revolution, and those that worked against Patriots.

During a period of Time all over the colonies these (Traitors) who supported the British were identified locally, they were TOLD to leave with Time limits.

Great Britain for a few, though most of the common folk chose another place to go. Benedict Arnold went back to England, He was rejected. As a traitor he was not to be trusted, and it did not go well for him.

The majority moved north. We call them Canadiens. An exodus.


Kikknback
Posts: 83
Incept: 2020-03-17

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Expat_tom wrote..
Kikknback: I agree with a plain reading however I also believe that once the law has treated them as citizens it can't and shouldn't be revoked (this incidentally is the way that the Supreme Court treats official actions of an office who's head is later disqualified, it doesn't revoke every action that office has undertaken) because it becomes very dangerous and shouldn't be undertaken as lightly as trying to get the Supremes to take the case and just make a ruling as there is no guarantee they would apply the same logic, so it needs to be fixed by The Congress.


No, you DO NOT agree with a plain reading or you would have never typed the word HOWEVER immediately right afterwards, and gone on to give PROTECTION AND COVER to law breakers.

Murderers who elude authorities for decades get brought before THE LAW when caught, same with jail breakers. Why do you think illegal invaders should be treated any different when they are law breakers?

You dont support the Rule of Law or you would have never supported the Supreme Court legislating from the bench like you just did in providing them with cover. Just because some of the USSC are traitors, and can not follow the letter of the law, does not make it right.

Congress doesnt have to fix anything.

Elected officials just need to follow the letter of the law, and uphold their oaths they have taken.

For the multiple generations this would bring havoc, too bad. Its OUR COUNTRY, AND ITS OUR LAWS, not theirs.

Many of those illegal invader generations DO NOT RESPECT our country to this very day or consider them selves as citizens and part of our culture. If they did, they would not transform their neighborhoods into the culture of the country they ran away from.

The only people I see taking positions as you just did are people married to foreigners and have children with them or communists participating in backing the same position you just did. Which are you?

When did criminal law breakers ever get to change the law of the land when illegally in a foreign land...Mr EXPAT?

Expat_tom
Posts: 42
Incept: 2020-07-06

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Kikknback: let's say your grandparents stole some land from an Indian, built a farm and passed it to your parents and then your parents passed it to you, at what point are you just as much a victim of the circumstance if the Indian's descendants come to you asking for the sacred pissing grounds back?

The correct answer is to stop it from happening going forward, not to engage in some backward looking system of retribution and reparation.

There are many analogous ways of looking at this, none of them would be appealing if the shoe was on the other foot.

That is unless we also want to build a culture that is willing to go back through hundreds of years of treaties that the US violated or start having Black Americans going back through their DNA for hundreds of years and filing suits for paternity and shares of inheritance their parents and grandparents were denied.

We can either
(a) just allow to it continue unchecked which will ultimately mean the doom of the nation

(b) accept what has happened, and stop it going forward, repair the damage and move on

or
(c) or if you want to also look backwards, you can contribute to sowing another method of our demise as every group that has ever been wronged will demand to go backwards in time and get the redress for crimes your parents and grandparents commented.
Kikknback
Posts: 83
Incept: 2020-03-17

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Expat_tom wrote..
Kikknback: let's say your grandparents stole some land from an Indian, built a farm and passed it to your parents and then your parents passed it to you, at what point are you just as much a victim of the circumstance if the Indian's descendants come to you asking for the sacred pissing grounds back?

The correct answer is to stop it from happening going forward, not to engage in some backward looking system of retribution and reparation.

There are many analogous ways of looking at this, none of them would be appealing if the shoe was on the other foot.

That is unless we also want to build a culture that is willing to go back through hundreds of years of treaties that the US violated or start having Black Americans going back through their DNA for hundreds of years and filing suits for paternity and shares of inheritance their parents and grandparents were denied.

We can either
(a) just allow to it continue unchecked which will ultimately mean the doom of the nation

(b) accept what has happened, and stop it going forward, repair the damage and move on

or
(c) or if you want to also look backwards, you can contribute to sowing another method of our demise as every group that has ever been wronged will demand to go backwards in time and get the redress for crimes your parents and grandparents commented.


Kikknback wrote..
The only people I see taking positions as you just did are people married to foreigners and have children with them or communists participating in backing the same position you just did. Which are you?


I take it that is your roundabout way of saying "I'm Both", being your talking points come straight out of the democrat COMMIE speaking / debating playbook, which spits on the law of OUR land.

Tickerguy
Posts: 168083
Incept: 2007-06-26
A True American Patriot!
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Note: Corruption of blood is unconstitutional.

Therefore, if you wish to change it, you need to do it the right way. Any other way you try it qualifies you to be feral hog food.

----------
I don't give a flying **** if you're offended.
Expat_tom
Posts: 42
Incept: 2020-07-06

Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
We are where we are. It could have already been fixed but the United States has a huckster for a Presidency.

It needs to be fixed first by a bold Administration that first enacts a policy that no new anchor babies shall be treated as citizens.

This will get taken to court and I expect to to stand under Wong, especially with a more Conservative leaning court.

Once that happens, it will light a fire under Congresses ass to explicitly fix the remaining problems, namely it will codify and make clear that anyone that was born before that date isn't going to be in danger of some future tyrannical administration digging back in the records of someone's parents or grand parents and trying to make them second class citizens because it suddenly decides it doesn't like them.

Shows over, issues off the table, no new anchor babies.

It could have and should have been Executive Order Number 1 in Jan 2017.
Hamburglar
Posts: 101
Incept: 2010-06-12

citified
Report This As A Bad Post Add To Your Ignored User List
Yall do realize that Donald Trumps mother was born in Scotland and became a naturalized citizen in 1942 right?
She and Fred lied on the 1940 census claiming she was already a citizen at that time
But she was a citizen by the time of Donalds birth in 1946not natural born tho
So according to your interpretation we havent had a legitimate head of state since the morning of January 20, 2009 correct?
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
Showing Page 2 of 3  First123Last