|
|
Originally Posted by bahurd
(Post 1509671)
The SC in it's 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 disagreed.
That said, many people (myself included) often speculate as to the intent of the people who authored the Constitution and its amendments, wish for some kind of context in which to interpret them, etc. This happens to be one of those rare cases in which the person who actually authored a constitutional amendment also penned a very concise essay which explains specifically how it was intended to be read. The author of the 14th amendment made it clear that it does not apply to people who are already citizens of another country.
Originally Posted by bahurd
(Post 1509672)
You mean immigration in general? Or the hordes of babies being born by those illegals?
Eg: claiming that the 1st (or 2nd, or 14th, or whatever) amendment is "outdated" or "doesn't really apply to this situation." It's not about immigration, it's about the sanctity of the constitution itself. |
Pretty good article on the 14th, how/why it came to be. Court cases that evolved from it: Analyzing Birthright Citizenship as Declared (Not Established) by the Fourteenth Amendment. Too bad the amendment authors didn't specifically exclude those here illegally or born to those here illegally. |
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
(Post 1509682)
The Supreme Court often disagrees, interprets the constitution in new ways, etc. That's kind of the whole reason for having the Supreme Court in the first place.
That said, many people (myself included) often speculate as to the intent of the people who authored the Constitution and its amendments, wish for some kind of context in which to interpret them, etc. This happens to be one of those rare cases in which the person who actually authored a constitutional amendment also penned a very concise essay which explains specifically how it was intended to be read. The author of the 14th amendment made it clear that it does not apply to people who are already citizens of another country. |
Originally Posted by bahurd
(Post 1509672)
You mean immigration in general? Or the hordes of babies being born by those illegals? Interesting statistics: White Students are Now the Minority in U.S. Public Schools
|
Originally Posted by buffon01
(Post 1509757)
What about citizens of other countries with legal entry, are they then subject to jurisdiction?
"Allegiance to a sovereign power or state" is the key article here. A citizen of the UK, residing in the US on a work visa or holding a Legal Permanent Resident card, is still considered to be a subject of, and owing allegiance to, the British Crown. As such, they do not have the same rights, within the US, as a US citizen. If they wish to become a US citizen, they are required to renounce their allegiance to any foreign nation. (Source: Code of Federal Regulations Title 8, Chapter V, Subchapter C, §1337.1.) Aliens residing in the US (as with US citizens residing in a foreign country) are required to obey the laws of the area in which they reside. They are not, however, granted all of the rights and privileges which are afforded to a citizen. To name a few examples, citizens are (with a few exceptions, such as disenfranchisement) permitted to vote, eligible to run for public office, entitled to receive social services, able to hold a passport from the country of residence, entitled to access the consulate offices of that country when traveling abroad, eligible for public-sector employment, and immune from deportation. These are not extended to non-citizens, regardless of the legality of their residency. EDIT: I just realized that the Oath of the Presidency, from Battlestar Galactica, contains a phrase which is lifted directly from the US Oath of Allegiance which is the final step in the process of obtaining US Citizenship. To wit: "...without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion..." So that's kind of cool in a nerdy way. |
|
|
how to socialist, 2018:
“In a modern, moral and wealthy society, no person should be too poor to live,” Ocasio-Cortez said when asked to define her Democratic Socialism. “We should treat healthcare, housing, and education as rights,” she said, adding, “I believe we should guarantee a basic level of human dignity in America.” Jorge Ramos then asked specifically about several of her proposals. “Medicare for all, is it too expensive?” Ramos asked. “No, people often say, like, how are you going to pay for it and I find the question so puzzling because ‘How do you pay for something that’s more affordable? How do you pay for cheaper rent?’ You just pay for it. We’re paying more now.” she really is that dumb... |
fake news from FL:
https://deadline.com/2018/11/msnbc-g...MN2jjsqe98jqq4 https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress...6&h=299&crop=1 this aired monday night. |
It isn't the biggest or most flashy subject but I am sure hoping the Marijuana legalizing measures pass in the various states that have it on the ballot.
6 more years before I retire and have to decide which of the legal states to move to. Sure want more choices. Doubt Oklahoma will make it legal by the because we are such a backwards state. |
i got to vote if we take out another big ass loan to pay for another stupid ass project.
https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net...17&oe=5C3D4324 https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net...93&oe=5C89E195 |
It will be legalized here in Michigan. Bet.
|
Originally Posted by BGordon
(Post 1509785)
It isn't the biggest or most flashy subject but I am sure hoping the Marijuana legalizing measures pass in the various states that have it on the ballot.
6 more years before I retire and have to decide which of the legal states to move to. Sure want more choices. Doubt Oklahoma will make it legal by the because we are such a backwards state. I was surprised we even got medical to pass. Speaking of, I need to find a doctor and get my card. And recreational was pulled from the ballot thanks to the group forging signatures to try to get it on. |
Everyone keeps talking about democrats but I've yet to see my taxes lowered after trump took office.. Unfortunately I'm not the top 1% sooooo.
|
I feel for you Maniac.
My guess is that Oklahoma will be in the bottom half to actually legalize it, which is why I am making preparations to move to another state after retirement. Rather than actually voting for either of the garbage candidates for guv I just took the easy way out and voted straight party on the ballot. I also vote to get rid of every judge even though they all get re-elected. If it does become legal before I retire it will be simple remain living here. A guy has to be prepared for the worst even as I am hoping for the best. Guarantee I am not moving way North to any of the states voting on it this time. |
Have you done your 2018 taxes yet?
In theory you should be getting the benefit this year but for most it doesn't show up till we file. I can't do mine till early next year. Revisit the subject about a month after submitting yours and see if you still have the same attitude. |
Originally Posted by triple88a
(Post 1509813)
Everyone keeps talking about democrats but I've yet to see my taxes lowered after trump took office.. Unfortunately I'm not the top 1% sooooo.
The tax cut basically offset the cost of adding my girlfriend to my health insurance for the year, roughly $140/month IIRC. |
I voted straight ticket Lawrence Snead, except for one choice. I may have to drop running MKTurbo to become the City of Goose Creek's Coroner. We had a vote for soil and water district commissioner and I voted Green for that one. Mostly because I voted for Nader.
|
Made sure to vote for the black republican here.
In all honestly, i did vote for John James. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:51 PM. |
|
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands