floridafan
Verified User
Your total complete ignorance is expected and acknowledged.Not at all. The 14th amendment does not even address this.
Your total complete ignorance is expected and acknowledged.Not at all. The 14th amendment does not even address this.
Not sure if you are lying or just stupid, but not a single part of trumps wall has been funded. If I am wrong, prove it.
They are foreign nationals. Their political jurisdiction is Mexico. Legal jurisdiction is not political jurisdiction. Those under a foreign political jurisdiction may be deported to their nation of origin.
Why should Trump care what other countries do?
I love it when idiots like you who have never spent a single day in any law school, become self professed experts on the constitution
The 14th amendment is not now a part of the constitution
Yes they are subject to US jurisdiction.. There is NO OTHER LAW IN THE US EXCEPT US LAW.
Okay.
https://www.texastribune.org/2018/0...n-spending-bill-includes-some-border-wall-fu/
https://nypost.com/2018/06/02/trumps-border-wall-breaks-ground-in-san-diego/
Another section is under construction in New Mexico.
Where is he changing the constitution?
Nice try, though.
NEXT!
It is idiotic to say that someone actually inside the borders of the United States is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Untied States.
You boob.. If she's in the US she is under US jurisdiction.. NO other country has jurisdiction in the US.
The 14th amendment is not now a part of the constitution
"The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is quite simply that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby."
Exactly![]()
Arguing with that guy, Kudzu...is like arguing with a brick wall.
The statutes define the Constitution..
8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States ...
8 U.S. Code § 1401 - Nationals and citizens of United States at birth ... as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such ... of employment with the ...
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401
trump does not get to decide what the interpretation of the law is> Its up to the Supreme Court not him.
We're talking about citizenship, cunt. Perhaps you were trying to get someone to look at your boobs.
The intent of the 14th wasn't to give what she birthed citizenship as a result of a legal act. Too many lefties believe that's what it meant.
"Shall not be infringed" is not stand alone, it is dependent on the prefatory clause, in simple terms, it would be like a kid's mother saying,"if you clean up your room, I will owe you an allowance." That doesn't mean the kid is automatically owed the allowence, but the allowence is dependent upon him cleaning his room, the prefatory clause. Same logic applies to "shall not be infringed"