Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals

[USFREEDOM911]

In light of what our immigration laws have become it is NOT clearly defined. As you go on to say there was a target class...period!

Precisely why the 14th needs to be either amended or more clearly defined by the courts! Our government would not be "removing" citizenship if it is defined as not being granted to anchor babies (babies of illegal immigrants).

The conflict exists because of illegal immigration laws. This means that we must decide about how our laws regarding illegals are to be enforced. This of course gives way to a valid discussion about anchor babies. The 14th and laws regarding illegal immigration are incongruent...split the damned hair and parse the facts all you want to, doesn't change that reality.

I foresee that this is going to be further defined by the Supreme Court, which may or may not then see a push for a Constitutional Amendment.
Expect to see some really good presentatinos, by both sides; but those in favor of granting anchor babies citizenship have precedent on their side, which is going to be extremelly difficult to get past.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Hair-splitters can never fully accept error...they will split any hair available to avoid admission of error. Here we have him plucking the hair of "still I'm right about my position the author is wrong about his opinion". Trust me Free...this dude will pluck his mama's hairs before ever admitting to the possibility of 1. being wrong or 2. just saying I may be wrong, but it is my opinion. His creed is anyone and everyone else who disagrees with me is wrong!

There was some headway made, when he admitted that he was in error; but now his stand is that I'm wrong also, for misunderstanding his stance.
If nothing else, it keeps him off of the streets and avoids anyone else from being infected with his errors.

 

[Bonestorm]

I foresee that this is going to be further defined by the Supreme Court, which may or may not then see a push for a Constitutional Amendment.
Expect to see some really good presentatinos, by both sides; but those in favor of granting anchor babies citizenship have precedent on their side, which is going to be extremelly difficult to get past.

I'm not sure that I understand where there is any lack of clarity in the 14th Amendment pertaining to citizenship of person born in the United States. I don't think precedent is difficult to get past; rather, the language of the 14th Amendment might pose some problems to people arguing that people born in the United States aren't citizens.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I'm not sure that I understand where there is any lack of clarity in the 14th Amendment pertaining to citizenship of person born in the United States. I don't think precedent is difficult to get past; rather, the language of the 14th Amendment might pose some problems to people arguing that people born in the United States aren't citizens.

That was what I was trying to say.

The meaning of different parts of the Constitution and it's Amendments have had different interpretations, depending on who's making the ruling and what the arguement has been.

Personally; I see a push for an Amendment, to the Amendment.

 

[Timshel]

The only thing that is clear, to anyone with intelligence and the ability to have cognitive thought, is that you errored when you responded to the article; because you interpretted it as being fact and this of course allowed you to crank up your "rant-du-jour" and to begin railing against something that you perceived as going to occur.

I did not make any error, retard. My comment was in reference to the article, which was in error. There was little to check against. I could not read a bill that does not exist to check the author's facts, as you dishonestly implied that you had. You made the errors and the author made an error.

The only time that you attempted to make it appear that you were referencing the writers comments, is after you realized that you had painted yourself into a corner and shifting gears was your only way to hope to save yourself from looking totally stupid.

BULL-FUCKING-SHIT. I quoted the article and commented on it, retard. It's right there in post #3 for anyone who cares to see it. You then incorrectly claimed that there was nothing to suggest that and started lying implying you had read the bill and that was not in it.

Now go the fuck away and quit trying to spin this into some "gotcha" bullshit when you are clearly the one that has been had, again.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I did not make any error, retard. My comment was in reference to the article, which was in error. There was little to check against. I could not read a bill that does not exist to check the author's facts, as you dishonestly implied that you had. You made the errors and the author made an error.



BULL-FUCKING-SHIT. I quoted the article and commented on it, retard. It's right there in post #3 for anyone who cares to see it. You then incorrectly claimed that there was nothing to suggest that and started lying implying you had read the bill and that was not in it.

Now go the fuck away and quit trying to spin this into some "gotcha" bullshit when you are clearly the one that has been had, again.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

So the article was in error; but you aren't in error for supporting his error.

By the way; here's the rest of my post, which you found the need to leave out.

The fact that you find the need to continue to attempt to defend yourself, is even more evidence; because the truth needs no defending and you are failing miserably, in your pathetic attempt to resurrect your common sense from the tomb that you built for it.

This is further exhibited; in your comments regarding "TAKING AWAY" citizenship, in another part of this thread, which is in no way implied.

PLease continue to amuse me, with your antics and tom foolery.
Dance clown, dance. I command it.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

That was really a nice dance you did, now juggle for me; because I'm bored.
I command it.

 

[Timshel]

The common law that existed for ages? The fact of the matter is the originator of the 14th, Howard, emphasised a class of people who do not have birth right citizenship while debating it on the House Floor:

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

You offer no source. Debate is not admissible as evidence. However, this comes from a Supreme Court ruling (linked previously) not some biased anti-immigration site that wishes to cherry pick quotes out of context....

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

During the debates in the Senate in January and February, 1866, upon the Civil Rights Bill, Mr. Trumbull, the chairman of the committee which reported the bill, moved to amend the first sentence thereof so as to read,

All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, without distinction of color.

Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, asked, "Whether it will not have the effect of naturalizing the children of Chinese and Gypsies born in this country?" Mr. Trumbull answered, "Undoubtedly," and asked, "is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen?" Mr. Cowan replied, "The children of German parents are citizens; but Germans are not Chinese." Mr. Trumbull rejoined: "The law makes no such distinction, and the child of an Asiatic is just as much a citizen as the child of a European." Mr. Reverdy Johnson suggested that the words, "without distinction of color," should be omitted as unnecessary, and said:

The amendment, as it stands, is that all persons born in the United States, and not subject to a foreign power, shall, by virtue of birth, be citizens. To that I am willing to consent, [p698] and that comprehends all persons, without any reference to race or color, who may be so born.

And Mr. Trumbull agreed that striking out those words would make no difference in the meaning, but thought it better that they should be retained to remove all possible doubt. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st sess. pt. 1, pp. 498, 573, 574.

It is quite clear that the framer of this amendment did not wish for "aliens" born here to have citizenship. Again, hairsplitter, the fact of the matter is it is both valid and needed to revisit and clarify the 14th...the foundation for doing so IS there...and I think I'll be proven right. This is not to say it will be successful...the first visit, but then again, it just might!

A baby of an illegal immigrant has no “allegiance" to anyone or place, but that of its parents who are NOT citizens of this country.

That is not true. Anyone in this country owes allegiance to our laws, otherwise they could not be illegal immigrants. Further, the 14th contains another reference to jurisdiction...

nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

...This has always been interpreted as anyone within our borders, except those who are not within our jurisdiction, i.e., Indians and diplomats. Everyone else is subject to the laws of the United States and state, regardless of their place of birth.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

There is NO WAY this law could possibly be upheld. The complete stupidity to even THINK about banning citizenship to someone who is undeniably entitled to it should be grounds for taking said person to the loony bin. Anyone who votes for such a 'law' should be dragged out of office and shot for treason.... and NO... I am not attempting to troll like Water... I am 100% serious. They should be shot.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

There is NO WAY this law could possibly be upheld. The complete stupidity to even THINK about banning citizenship to someone who is undeniably entitled to it should be grounds for taking said person to the loony bin. Anyone who votes for such a 'law' should be dragged out of office and shot for treason.... and NO... I am not attempting to troll like Water... I am 100% serious. They should be shot.

This is why I said I expect there to be a push to amend the amendment.

 

[Timshel]

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

So the article was in error; but you aren't in error for supporting his error.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

That was really a nice dance you did, now juggle for me; because I'm bored.
I command it.

Last time...

Where did I support his error? I gave it the benefit of the doubt and commented on it. That is all. I probably should not have, considering that it would been an unusual position, but Pearce is an extremist and TIME magazine is a fairly credible source. So, it was not at all unreasonable to assume his facts were accurate. They were not, big fucking deal. That's not any glaring error on my part as you continue to pretend.

You did not even show that he was in error, though you claimed to know he was because you knew what was in a bill that does not exist. I went out and looked for another reference, myself, found that the author must have been mistaken about Pearce's intent and stated that.

It is you that has been in error, throughout. My comments were suggested by the article and you have not read the bill, though you dishonestly implied that you had.

Now, can we get back to the ACTUAL discussion or will you continue to insist on rehashing your error and dishonesty over and over again.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Last time...

Where did I support his error? I gave it the benefit of the doubt and commented on it. That is all. I probably should not have, considering that it would been an unusual position, but Pearce is an extremist and TIME magazine is a fairly credible source. So, it was not at all unreasonable to assume his facts were accurate. They were not, big fucking deal. That's not any glaring error on my part as you continue to pretend.

You did not even show that he was in error, though you claimed to know he was because you knew what was in a bill that does not exist. I went out and looked for another reference, myself, found that the author must have been mistaken about Pearce's intent and stated that.

It is you that has been in error, throughout. My comments were suggested by the article and you have not read the bill, though you dishonestly implied that you had.

Now, can we get back to the ACTUAL discussion or will you continue to insist on rehashing your error and dishonesty over and over again.

If this is truly the last time, which I doubt, then GOOD; because maybe now you'll STFU.

Your comments on his article showed you supported his opinion, which was where the error began; on your part.

I knew he was in error; because your support of his error is what I called you on and even your own latest post shows that you were in error.

The only one who has been dishonest in this exchange, has been you; but then I can understand how emabarassed you of your lack of cognitive thought and your pathetic defense of your position.

Now that you've danced and juggled for me; bark like a dog.
I command it.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA

 

[Timshel]

Okay, I don't know why I ever say last time, because I can never resist pointing out the errors of retards like usfreedumb no matter how obvious or how many times it has to be repeated for the dimwits (see web polls thread). But the one failing to stfu on this and trying to go over it is you. I am just repeating the facts.

You did not call me on supporting his error (which I did not do). You claimed there was nothing to suggest my comments, though I quoted the exact part of the article that did.

I offered nothing to support his error and once I determined that he must have been mistaken, I noted that.

Because you are desperately seeking some way to avenge the ass-kickings I deliver to you regularly, you have latched upon the fact that I commented on an errant statement and tried to make it the issue. It's not and nobody cares, except you and the people who regularly enjoy me putting my foot up their ass.

STY posted the article from a usually credible source and I responded to the article. That's it. Big fucking deal. I feel no need to be embarrassed of that. It's not as if I implied that I had read a bill which does not exist as you did several times.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

This is why I said I expect there to be a push to amend the amendment.

I give the odds of that actually happening at somewhere between 0% and 0%.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Okay, I don't know why I ever say last time, because I can never resist pointing out the errors of retards like usfreedumb no matter how obvious or how many times it has to be repeated for the dimwits (see web polls thread). But the one failing to stfu on this and trying to go over it is you. I am just repeating the facts.

You did not call me on supporting his error (which I did not do). You claimed there was nothing to suggest my comments, though I quoted the exact part of the article that did.

I offered nothing to support his error and once I determined that he must have been mistaken, I noted that.

Because you are desperately seeking some way to avenge the ass-kickings I deliver to you regularly, you have latched upon the fact that I commented on an errant statement and tried to make it the issue. It's not and nobody cares, except you and the people who regularly enjoy me putting my foot up their ass.

STY posted the article from a usually credible source and I responded to the article. That's it. Big fucking deal. I feel no need to be embarrassed of that. It's not as if I implied that I had read a bill which does not exist as you did several times.

Rather then reiterate all the smack downs I've allready given you, I'll address just a couple of points.
1. I knew it wasn't going to be the "last time"; because your so embarassed of your own behavior, that you have a need to try to rescue what little integrity you might have left.

2. You errored in your typing; because you accidently typed in "kk", when it is obvious to everyone that they should have been "ss".

Now that you've amused me, by backpedaling, juggling, and barking; you should now sit up and beg.

I command it.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I give the odds of that actually happening at somewhere between 0% and 0%.

I'm going to disagree with you; because there seems to be a lot of interest in curtailing the illegal immigration issue, at this time.
More States are looking at following AZ's 1070 and there's been a lot more vocalization in wanting solutions to the illegal immigratiom problem.

Time will tell.

 

[Timshel]

I'm not sure that I understand where there is any lack of clarity in the 14th Amendment pertaining to citizenship of person born in the United States. I don't think precedent is difficult to get past; rather, the language of the 14th Amendment might pose some problems to people arguing that people born in the United States aren't citizens.

Exactly, the 14th is quite clear.

Never has jurisdiction been defined by birthplace or birthplace of your parents. Where ever you are, you are subject to the laws of that region, unless explicitly excluded by the sovereign (i.e., Indians and diplomats).

Someone who is born here is subject to the jurisdiction of the US by being physically present in the US. Their parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the US, as clearly noted in the last sentence of the 14th. An illegal immigrant who commits a crime is subject to our jurisdiction, not Mexico's. If they are the victim of a crime, they are within he protection of our jurisdiction, not Mexico's.

The anti immigrant forces here are the hair splitters pretending that "jurisdiction" means one thing in the first sentence and a totally different thing in the last sentence and in all other uses that are commonly known.

It's just nonsense. Maybe, that is what Howard intended, but it does not matter because he did not phrase it in a way that makes that known to those who voted for it. Therefore, common law and common usage concerning the definition of jurisdiction must be applied.

 

[Timshel]

Rather then reiterate all the smack downs I've allready given you, I'll address just a couple of points.
1. I knew it wasn't going to be the "last time"; because your so embarassed of your own behavior, that you have a need to try to rescue what little integrity you might have left.

Was I embarrassed when I repeated over and over again to you why web polls are not accurate? No, I am just a stubborn motherfucker and I guess there is some misguided hope on my part that you are capable of comprehending, if I can just find the right way to say it. That's a completely unfounded assumption on my part, though.

2. You errored in your typing; because you accidently typed in "kk", when it is obvious to everyone that they should have been "ss".

???

Now that you've amused me, by backpedaling, juggling, and barking; you should now sit up and beg.

No backpedaling. The article was wrong, on that point. My comments were in reference to that and so obviously made irrelevant and withdrawn by the acknowledgment that the reference was in error.

So when did you read the bill? You keep evading this, though it is what you alone implied. It was not in reference to anyone elses error.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Was I embarrassed when I repeated over and over again to you why web polls are not accurate? No, I am just a stubborn motherfucker and I guess there is some misguided hope on my part that you are capable of comprehending, if I can just find the right way to say it. That's a completely unfounded assumption on my part, though.



???




No backpedaling. The article was wrong, on that point. My comments were in reference to that and so obviously made irrelevant and withdrawn by the acknowledgment that the reference was in error.

So when did you read the bill? You keep evading this, though it is what you alone implied. It was not in reference to anyone elses error.

It's now even more apparent that you're embarassed by your behavior and lack of comprehension ability.
It's obvious that you can't let this go; because your ego's been bruised and you have to find someway to save what little integrity you might have.

What's even more amusing, is that you have resorted to the standard Libtard behavior of "the best defense, is a good offense"; because you've switched to trying to defend your pathetic behavior and are now attacking by demanding responses.

And to think, you said you were done with this.
At least you've been able to admit that you're just a "stubborn motherfucker".

 

[Timshel]

If I were embarrassed why would I continue to keep it in focus by responding. That makes no sense. No, I would just evade and let it die as you have attempted to do concerning your dishonesty about having read the bill.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

If I were embarrassed why would I continue to keep it in focus by responding. That makes no sense. No, I would just evade and let it die as you have attempted to do concerning your dishonesty about having read the bill.

You keep it going; because like you said you're a "stubborn motherfucker" and the obvious fact that you're ego's been bruised.

The only way you can make yourself feel better, about your painful asskicking, is to try and regain some semblemce of your pitiful pride.

At least you keep the day from being boring and you are amusing, in a really pathetic way.

Just curious though; is this your last time, or is your next time the last time??