Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals

[Timshel]

And my questions on your claim to have read the bill go way back and were not new once you made it clear that you intend to turn this thread into some gotcha bullshit. You have just attempted to ignore your dishonesty, because YOU are embarrassed.

I am not embarrassed. I assumed a usually reputable source (TIME) had their facts straight and so I made a comment on that. They did not. Again, big fucking deal. Now if it had been some whack-a-doodle right wing blog, like the ones you guys constantly reference, and I had just assumed the article was accurate, I might be a little embarrassed. But, TIME, not at all.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

And my questions on your claim to have read the bill go way back and were not new once you made it clear that you intend to turn this thread into some gotcha bullshit. You have just attempted to ignore your dishonesty, because YOU are embarrassed.

I am not embarrassed. I assumed a usually reputable source (TIME) had their facts straight and so I made a comment on that. They did not. Again, big fucking deal. Now if it had been some whack-a-doodle right wing blog, like the ones you guys constantly reference, and I had just assumed the article was accurate, I might be a little embarrassed. But, TIME, not at all.

Apparently you lost your ability to use the quote button, in your embarassement; because it makes it to obvious that you've been wrong since the beginning.

LOL

I take it that your last time wasn't your last time; so is this time your last time??

 

[Timshel]

I am too stubborn for my own good, as I would much rather discuss the actual issue while you focus only on your pathetic gotcha.

Maybe, I am waiting for you to finally explain how it is that you had read a bill that does not yet exist. But, you are obviously too embarrassed to address that.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I am too stubborn for my own good, as I would much rather discuss the actual issue while you focus only on your pathetic gotcha.

Maybe, I am waiting for you to finally explain how it is that you had read a bill that does not yet exist. But, you are obviously too embarrassed to address that.

Please stop.
All you're doing is embarassing yourself further, by hoping to what has finally developed into your own gotcha moment.

I'm almost begining to start feeling sorry for you.
Please stop and save yourself from any further lose of integrity.

 

[Timshel]

There is no need to continue repeat your repetitive comments as you have sunk this thread with gotcha bullshit. Only you and I are commenting now. Anyone can easily see to what I am responding.

And it did not help you even when I quoted the article. But, not everybody is as stupid as you so maybe that point is not relevant.

Maybe, when you post something new about how it is that you read the bill, I will bother with the quote.

 

[Timshel]

Uh huh. Your ass is getting sore and now you want me to stop pointing out your evasion of the point that is obviously causing you embarrassment. Unlike you, though, if you would respond ONCE, I would leave that be instead of continuing to litter what was an interesting thread.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

There is no need to continue repeat your repetitive comments as you have sunk this thread with gotcha bullshit. Only you and I are commenting now. Anyone can easily see to what I am responding.

And it did not help you even when I quoted the article. But, not everybody is as stupid as you so maybe that point is not relevant.

Maybe, when you post something new about how it is that you read the bill, I will bother with the quote.

OOOOOOOOOOOO, that was a good one!!
You were able to berate my intelligence, while promoting your own.

Unfortunetly; it's been obvious to everyone that you couldn't find your way out of a round room, if the exit was marked and open.

Anyway; I'm really flattered by all this attention you're giving me and don't worry, I won't ignore you.
Your ego's already been bruised enough and I wouldn't want your mental breakdown on my conscience, even though it would be a short drive.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Uh huh. Your ass is getting sore and now you want me to stop pointing out your evasion of the point that is obviously causing you embarrassment. Unlike you, though, if you would respond ONCE, I would leave that be instead of continuing to litter what was an interesting thread.

I'm not sure which post you're referring to, seeing as how your ability to use the quote feature appears to be outside your realm of capabilities.

The only way my ass could be sore, would be if I had a rash from all the times your lips have been on it.

Please stop.
Even I'm beginning to feel embarassed for you.

 

[Timshel]

Uh huh, as if you need that quote in order to finally explain how you read the bill. Maybe, your hope is to keep up your gotcha until there is actually a bill to read. lol

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Uh huh, as if you need that quote in order to finally explain how you read the bill. Maybe, your hope is to keep up your gotcha until there is actually a bill to read. lol

RS; please stop trying for your gotcha moment.
This is becoming almost pathetic; but I'm sure you will continue, until you become totally pathetic

 

[Timshel]

And once again you are silent on being caught in a lie.

Okay, I am really getting bored with your repeated evasions. But don't worry, I will be here to remind everyone how you lied about reading this bill, the next time you make that bs claim on some other bill, as you likely did on sb1070. And you can remind them how I commented on an errant point in an article. Hmmm, I wonder which one seems more embarrassing?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

And once again you are silent on being caught in a lie.

Okay, I am really getting bored with your repeated evasions. But don't worry, I will be here to remind everyone how you lied about reading this bill, the next time you make that bs claim on some other bill, as you likely did on sb1070. And you can remind them how I commented on an errant point in an article. Hmmm, I wonder which one seems more embarrassing?

I love the way you include the disclaimer of "likely did"; because as everyone can see, this gives you the opportuity to deny that you said anything.

To help put this to an end, would you feel better if I said that you're correct??

 

[Timshel]

No dummy. I can't know whether you read sb1070. But it is likely that you read it in the same way you read this bill, i.e., you did not.

The only way I can be correct on your reading of both bills is if you are lying, since the citizenship bill does not yet exist.

Or maybe you are Pearce himself, which would explain your stupidity, or an insider. But, that would open you up to proving that you have lied on other points, i.e., you have previously claimed that you would not support the bill if it contained things (racial profiling) that were in the original.

So, which is it? Are you a liar or are you a liar?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

No dummy. I can't know whether you read sb1070. But it is likely that you read it in the same way you read this bill, i.e., you did not.

The only way I can be correct on your reading of both bills is if you are lying, since the citizenship bill does not yet exist.

Or maybe you are Pearce himself, which would explain your stupidity, or an insider. But, that would open you up to proving that you have lied on other points, i.e., you have previously claimed that you would not support the bill if it contained things (racial profiling) that were in the original.

So, which is it? Are you a liar or are you a liar?

I am just in awe of the way you use "likely" as a disclaimer.
Kind of like I don't really know; but it's likely that RS blows horses.
See; I didn't really say you did, I just said it was likely.

I see that you still want to keep refering to the original SB 1070 and just want to ignore the revisions; but then it's what works best for your "rant-du-jour".

I'm unable to answer your last qustion; because it's a strawman presentation., kind of like:
RS; do you still beat your wife/girlfriend?? Yes or no, which is it.
Now; if you don't answer with just a Yes or No, then it will show that you're trying to hide some deep dark secret that you don't want to have exposed.

 

[Timshel]

You claimed you would not support it if it had included a high potential for racial profiling. It clearly did, which is why it was changed, and I have seen no indication that it caused you to hesitate in supporting it. Previously, I just assumed you were ignorant of the original. But, if you are somehow privy to information before the rest of us as you seem to imply, then obviously you would have known that and therefore you would be lying.

Again, I do not claim any paranormal abilities. I am not going to claim something as fact, as you have, unless I know it to be true. I have no way of knowing whether you read the sb1070, and never bothered a claim about whether you had until you showed yourself to be dishonest on this one by implying that you have read a bill that does not yet exist.

As for the wife beating, it is not akin to that at all. On what do you base the claim that I have ever beaten my wife? This is quite different because you have been backed into a corner by your own comments not just some silly question.

How is it that you have read a bill which does not yet exist? Is it even in a rough draft yet? Maybe, I don't know. But if you claim I was correct that you have read both bills in the same way, then either you are an insider and you lied about basing your support on protections against racial profiling or you are just lying about having read either.

It does not really matter. You are an idiot who places his ego above intellectual honesty, which is proven by your stupid and untenable position on things like the accuracy of web polls. That should be embarrassing, as you could not get more than a couple of your butt buddies to agree with you on that if you offered them all bj's. But apparently you don't swallow or something since none of them did.

We can drop it. I don't care. I will just find something to kick your ass on tomorrow or the next day, while you are left to pretend that my comments in reference to an errant article are some great prize for you or loss for me.

 

[tinfoil]

 

[Canceled2]

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,

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:

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.

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.

Until illegal immigration laws became law it was not an issue. For years after the law was passed we used to kick illegals out and we were not an entitlement society...the times they are changing.

The author of the 14th amendment was clear what the intent was for and what it was not for "foreigners or aliens" to use. What is an "illegal alien" if not a foreigner? It was specifically written and debated to address the need of emancipated slaves and of course it incorporated "legal" immigrants.

Immigrants whether Chinese or German or Gypsy were NOT illegal. Why??? Because we had no illegal alien laws at the time the 14th amendment was ratified!!!! Now we do!

Your whine to have my quote sourced when google is obviously your friend is nothing more than a disingenuos sleight of hand. It's obvious you need yet another hair to split with this tactic! Because you'd hair split any source I provide Though maybe you could google Jacob Howard and that might help your aversion to real debate that does not include split hairs.

 

[Timshel]

Until illegal immigration laws became law it was not an issue. For years after the law was passed we used to kick illegals out and we were not an entitlement society...the times they are changing.

The author of the 14th amendment was clear what the intent was for and it was not for "foreigners or aliens" to use. What is an "illegal alien" if not a foreigner? It was specifically written and debated to address the need of emancipated slaves and of course it incorporated "legal" immigrants.

1) You have not proven this.
2) It does not matter.

You have not shown anything but one quote, without context, that you probably got from some anti-immigration site. I am not sure it is even accurate as I can't seem to find it on anything other than anti-immigration sites. I would want to see the full context, though, even if it is accurate.

I have already posted some of the debate from a credible source that counters your claim. See post #53. It was stated clearly and agreed, in debate, that this sentence would make the children of aliens citizens.

It does not matter what Howard intended because his intent was not at all clear to those voting for the amendment's passage, many of which were not part of any congressional debate. Their intent (which we can only assume by what the 14th says and what that meant at the time) is superior to Howard's. Howard could have claimed his intent was to have all aliens rounded up and shot... would you then argue that that is what we should do? I hope not, because the voters could not have known that was his intent and we can not assume they would have voted for it if they had.

If Howard intended something different he should have been more careful in his framing. As it is written we can only assume that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant what it had for ages, set forth in the common law, and since in every other use, including the reference to jurisdiction in the last sentence of the 14th.

Immigrants whether Chinese or German or Gypsy were NOT illegal. Why??? Because we had no illegal alien laws at the time the 14th amendment was ratified!!!! Now we do!

Your whine to have my quote sourced when google is obviously your friend is nothing more than a disingenuos sleight of hand. It's obvious you need yet another hair to split with this tactic! Because you'd hair split any source I provide Though maybe you could google Jacob Howard and that might help your aversion to real debate that does not include split hairs.

Again, it does not matter. Laws that were passed later cannot change the meaning or impact of the 14th. The 14th contains nothing excluding the children of aliens whether they were legal or not. According to the 14th, those born here and subject to the jurisdiction of our laws are citizens. Nothing can change that, except another amendment.

I have searched. I can't find the quote in context anywhere on the numerous anti immigration sites that reference it. If you have a thorough source then you can provide it. Otherwise, I am left to assume that you simply accepted what you were told by those who share your end goals.

The SC in the Wong Kim Ark case had good access to that information and they did not find it compelling. Well, they could not have, because it is inadmissible, but they did not seem to think that was the intent, made clear, in debate. Sorry, but I find them to be a more reputable source than the anti-immigration forces.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You claimed you would not support it if it had included a high potential for racial profiling. It clearly did, which is why it was changed, and I have seen no indication that it caused you to hesitate in supporting it. Previously, I just assumed you were ignorant of the original. But, if you are somehow privy to information before the rest of us as you seem to imply, then obviously you would have known that and therefore you would be lying.

Again, I do not claim any paranormal abilities. I am not going to claim something as fact, as you have, unless I know it to be true. I have no way of knowing whether you read the sb1070, and never bothered a claim about whether you had until you showed yourself to be dishonest on this one by implying that you have read a bill that does not yet exist.

As for the wife beating, it is not akin to that at all. On what do you base the claim that I have ever beaten my wife? This is quite different because you have been backed into a corner by your own comments not just some silly question.

How is it that you have read a bill which does not yet exist? Is it even in a rough draft yet? Maybe, I don't know. But if you claim I was correct that you have read both bills in the same way, then either you are an insider and you lied about basing your support on protections against racial profiling or you are just lying about having read either.

It does not really matter. You are an idiot who places his ego above intellectual honesty, which is proven by your stupid and untenable position on things like the accuracy of web polls. That should be embarrassing, as you could not get more than a couple of your butt buddies to agree with you on that if you offered them all bj's. But apparently you don't swallow or something since none of them did.

We can drop it. I don't care. I will just find something to kick your ass on tomorrow or the next day, while you are left to pretend that my comments in reference to an errant article are some great prize for you or loss for me.

Show me where I said anything about a "high probablility", or is this something that I LIKELY said.

As to your whining about SB 1070; this is just another attempt by you for a gotcha moment.

Since you didn't respond with just a Yes or a No, then it must mean that you're likely someone who's been charged with Domestic Violence and you're ashamed to let anyone know.

I see you're still trying to save your ass, from when you said that the guy's article was what was the debate was truly about.

And now you have reverted to the Libtard method of attempting to denigrate the other person, just so you can feel better about your personal failures.

Once again you have misspelled your post and wrote "KK", when you know it realy should have been "ss".

Are you finally done with making yourself look so foolish and being an embarassment to yourself??

 

[USFREEDOM911]

I received this in an E-Mail today and just thought I'd pass it on.

I keep hearing about the plight of the illegal immigrant and hear about how we as Americans should be ashamed. I, personally, was once lectured by an individual and told that I should be helping my people and not asking questions.

Many of these illegal’s get away with being in this country by using stolen personal data. Since I’ve been lectured and since I’ve been slammed on the blogs for such I have decided to support those who have slammed me and criticized me. If you support the plight of the illegal I’ll need your help to get them in this country. Please provide me the following information so I can help an illegal.


Your Name:

Your Address:

Your City:

Your State:

Your Zip Code:

Your Date of Birth:

Your Place of Birth:

Your Mother’s Name:

Your Father’s Name:

Your Social Security Number:

Credit Card 1 Information:

Credit Card 2 Information:

Agreement: By providing this information, I agree to have it to be passed on and used by anyone who enters the country illegally.

PS – A parental signature will be required if you are under 18, after all, we want to follow the law.

Any takers, or are the pro-illegal immigrants just all talk and no walk.
*rhetorical question; because hell yeah they are*