Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Current Events Current Events Forum - Latest political news and events


Thanks Tree20Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old August 12th, 2017, 11:39 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 6,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
It would require a constitutional amendment, the political cost is too high to make that feasible at this moment.
I do not believe it would take an amendment. There is already an exemption for children of diplomats. The exemption is in immigration law, not the constitution. Simply extending that exemption to anyone that has not applied for permanent residence is within the power of congress.
BubbaJones is offline  
Old August 12th, 2017, 11:42 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
BubbaJones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 6,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by caconservative View Post
From what I gather, it is going to illegal aliens and this states government is not stopping it. Anyone born here to illegal alien parents are not legal citizens. According to a study by the Migration Policy Institute, the parents are receiving both welfare and food-stamps.
Well my question is, are the parents receiving the benefits in their names as the direct beneficiary ? Or as the guardians of their children who are legally eligible ?
BubbaJones is offline  
Old August 12th, 2017, 11:47 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 9,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaJones View Post
I do not believe it would take an amendment. There is already an exemption for children of diplomats. The exemption is in immigration law, not the constitution. Simply extending that exemption to anyone that has not applied for permanent residence is within the power of congress.
Born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction...

Diplomats and their families have diplomatic immunity, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

If you want to pass a law that says that undocumented foreigners can not be charged with a crime, they can only be deported, then you solved the problem, sort of.
But gang members could murder with impunity, if they got caught, it's just a bus ride to the border.
goober is offline  
Old August 12th, 2017, 12:14 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: USA
Posts: 1,589
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof

Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
Born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction...

.


Mr. TRUMBULL responds to the above as follows SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)
1st column halfway down

“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

Mr. Trumbull later emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”


Mr. JOHNSON then rises to say: “…there is no definition in the Constitution as it now stands as to citizenship. Who is a citizen of the United States is an open question….there is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except through the medium of a citizenship in a State.

“Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”
…he then continues “…the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”

And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “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…” Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866) middle column half way down.

And so, a baby born to a foreign national mother while on American soil is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.


The facts are what they are! Stop trying to make the constitution mean what you want it to mean.


JWK
Thanks from Jimmyb and caconservative
johnwk is offline  
Old August 12th, 2017, 01:05 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Hollywood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Memphis, Tn.
Posts: 20,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabcat View Post
Income tax is theft.

If you do not pay income tax men in costumes w/ guns will kidnap you and stuff you in a cage.

The end
It simply does not matter what you call it. Meaningless. *shrug*
Hollywood is offline  
Old August 12th, 2017, 04:13 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: massachusetts
Posts: 9,586
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
Mr. TRUMBULL responds to the above as follows SEE: page 2893, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866)
1st column halfway down

“The provision is, that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” . . . “What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

Mr. Trumbull later emphasizes in crystal clear language that: “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”


Mr. JOHNSON then rises to say: “…there is no definition in the Constitution as it now stands as to citizenship. Who is a citizen of the United States is an open question….there is no definition as to how citizenship can exist in the United States except through the medium of a citizenship in a State.

“Now, all that this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”
…he then continues “…the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”

And then there is John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section who considered the proposed national law on citizenship as “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…” Cong. Globe, page 1291(March 9, 1866) middle column half way down.

And so, a baby born to a foreign national mother while on American soil is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment, nor becomes a citizen of the United States upon birth.


The facts are what they are! Stop trying to make the constitution mean what you want it to mean.


JWK

All your constitutional analysis has two things in common.


It's LONG and WRONG.

For all your parsing of the constitution, your quotes of people's opinions, the fact remains, if a baby is born on US soil, and the parents do not possess diplomatic immunity, it's a natural born citizen.
Thanks from Clara007

Last edited by goober; August 12th, 2017 at 04:17 PM.
goober is offline  
Old August 12th, 2017, 04:18 PM   #17
M(A)GA
 
Sabcat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 23,420
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
So? pay your taxes.

Better yet, avoid taxes, by taking a vow of poverty and living in a monastery.

No one is forcing you to pay taxes, just like no one is forcing you to pay the grocery store.
If you choose to get a bag of groceries, or to engage in activity that incurs a tax liability, that's your choice.
I know, I could be like you and just wait for my check in the mail each month and never pay income tax, as welfare is not income. Just like when you go to the food shelf instead of the market. I prefer better things for my kids whereas apparently you are content to feed the problem.


It is ok, I get it. Thinking hurts your brain.


Four legs good. Two legs bad.
Thanks from Jimmyb
Sabcat is online now  
Old August 12th, 2017, 04:55 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: California
Posts: 17,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by goober View Post
All your constitutional analysis has two things in common.


It's LONG and WRONG.

For all your parsing of the constitution, your quotes of people's opinions, the fact remains, if a baby is born on US soil, and the parents do not possess diplomatic immunity, it's a natural born citizen.
Please, where in the "citizenship clause" does it say that? Show us where the Supreme Court agrees with your assessment. I suggest you find out what "jurisdiction" in the citizenship clause means.
Thanks from Jimmyb
caconservative is offline  
Old August 12th, 2017, 05:00 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: California
Posts: 17,379
Good ol' Texas is at it again. Mexican national and illegal alien Rosa Ortega blatantly registered and voted in 5 different cities in Texas. Seems she was proud of it until her sentence was read. She will serve 8-years, and then be deported.
caconservative is offline  
Old August 12th, 2017, 05:07 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: California
Posts: 17,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by BubbaJones View Post
Well my question is, are the parents receiving the benefits in their names as the direct beneficiary ? Or as the guardians of their children who are legally eligible ?
Apparently, the entire family. Data from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Services shows that more than 58,000 families collected $602 million in benefits in 2015. 64,000 families received a total of $675 million in 2016. The entire county’s population cost the state $3.1 billion in total welfare and food stamps in 2015, and $2.9 billion in 2016. Currently, 25% of California's illegal alien population live in Los Angeles.
caconservative is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Current Events

Tags
cheese, cuts, demand, free, government, jason lewis, lewis, medicaid, protestors, rep



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No surprise, free cheese faction stifles Obamacare repeal johnwk Current Events 139 August 9th, 2017 06:35 AM
Repeal and Replace, the elephant in the room: our free cheese faction johnwk Current Events 28 July 18th, 2017 06:05 PM
Free cheese faction upset over Trump’s proposed five year ban on immigrant welfare johnwk Current Events 41 June 29th, 2017 05:40 PM
What is a major difference between Democrat and Republican voters? GOVERNMENT CHEESE johnwk Current Events 16 September 14th, 2016 08:21 PM
Smoking the Government Cheese Sabcat Taxes 6 May 29th, 2016 03:16 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.