ThatDumbChicken
Active Member
- Jun 9, 2025
- 41
- 29
- 59
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You know it's the same thing with anything Donald Trump does. People that cannot acknowledge what a woman, man is, are not going to acknowledge anything they refuse to know. I mean really! It is the same thing. Marxism operates on cognitive dissonance. So this will go on and on.Irrelevant. The parents are. The parents are citizens of another country and do not have legal rights to remain in this country. Children born of citizens of another country who do not have a legal right to remain in this one should be citizens of the country of the parents.
Thats our position. No anchor babies. Go home and take your child with you. We will be HAPPY to have you apply for citizenship and come here on invitation. Then you AND your child can participate in this great country and we will welcome you with open arms.
It is settled law. This is no different than people trying to redefine and reinterpret the Second Amendment because they don’t like the rights it grants. It says very clearly “shall not be infringed”.It is one thing to disagree. But to pretend this has already been settled is another.
Which is everyone that doesn’t have diplomatic immunity....subject to the jurisdiction thereof...
We know for a fact that whether you disapprove or not, the birthright provision ONLY, repeat ONLY. applies to the babyYou know it's the same thing with anything Donald Trump does. People that cannot acknowledge what a woman, man is, are not going to acknowledge anything they refuse to know. I mean really! It is the same thing. Marxism operates on cognitive dissonance. So this will go on and on.
Sure you do. But that poor supreme court just does not know it.We know for a fact that whether you disapprove or not, the birthright provision ONLY, repeat ONLY. applies to the baby
But it is not what this is about. It is about JURISCICTION. But that is just a repeat so I am done.It is settled law. This is no different than people trying to redefine and reinterpret the Second Amendment because they don’t like the rights it grants. It says very clearly “shall not be infringed”.
It says very clearly “all persons born”.
Congress is not going to address the immigration issue because that means resolving it, and if it is resolved then it can’t be used as a campaign issue in the next election. But the LEAST they should do is enforce the laws that are already on the books and not just ignore them because they don’t like them.I dont know how this will play out. Everyone of course is allowed their opinion. And court is allowed theirs. If they decide that the child is in fact a citizen, then so be it.
Congress then needs to change immigration law to clarify rhat the child is a citizen, the parents are still illegally here and subject to deportation. They can either take the child with them and apply for citizenship or leave the child here with a legal citizen. They can still apply if course and come back if accepted.
I do not see this particular issue be settled by congress. It first needs to be determined what the constitution means here. This is why Trump brought this to the court with his executive order. He knew it would be challenged as unconstitutional. He wanted this issue settled. So, now it will be.Congress is not going to address the immigration issue because that means resolving it, and if it is resolved then it can’t be used as a campaign issue in the next election. But the LEAST they should do is enforce the laws that are already on the books and not just ignore them because they don’t like them.
And the law is - Don’t come into this country illegally. Entering the country makes you ILLEGAL (that means a criminal.) Asylum standard is to apply for asylum in the next country you enter when you leave your own country, not one 5 countries away.
Slavery is something else entirely. If you are stolen from one country and forcibly taken to another, I have no issues with your children being a citizen. Most slaves had no way to get home. We are talking about people who come here on their own voluntarily.This touches upon how we read the 14th Amendment. It concerned Slavery in America and the ending of it.
Thanks for your interpretation. But its yours. I see under the jurisdiction differently than you.Irrelevant. The birthright clause of the 14th amendment only mentions the rights of the children born within the US. They are citizens. Full stop. It doesn’t qualify that the parents have to be here legally. It doesn’t state that either of the parents need to be citizens. It says very plainly ALL PERSONS BORN.
What you want now is a constitutional amendment to redefine citizenship as it has historically been interpreted.
We also have over 150 years of established legal precedent that everyone born in the United States is a citizen of the United States. You’re the ones trying to change the definition of citizenship.Thanks for your interpretation. But its yours. I see under the jurisdiction differently than you.
If aliens were not under our jurisdiction then we would have no authority to declare them illegal and deport them.We also have over 150 years of established legal precedent that everyone born in the United States is a citizen of the United States. You’re the ones trying to change the definition of citizenship.
The Supreme Court decision changes nothing about the Abrego Garcia case. The Supreme Court decision does not nullify the power of a federal district court to block the president in regards to that specific case.But now you are making a considerably different claim than the one you were making. Your complaint was that the system where a lower court could say the President couldn't do something, but then the Supreme Court (which could have people appointed by the President) could say the President could do it, was somehow dictator like. As I noted, that is literally the system that has been around since the Constitution was ratified, and it is not even unique to the United States, given various other democracies have this sort of system.
Now you are essentially changing the subject to something different, and one that ironically is not even compatible with your prior complaint. Before, you were complaining about the fact the Supreme Court could overturn a lower court and say the President could do something even if that lower court said he couldn't. Now, however, your complaint is to apparently refer to Abrego Garcia... a time when the Supreme Court said the President couldn't have deported him the way he did and he should try to get him back. So it appears the example of the Supreme Court saying the President could do something a lower court said he couldn't is to point to the Supreme Court saying he couldn't do something, namely deport Abrego Garcia to the country he was deported to? Even setting that aside, Trump did (after a bunch of hemming and hawing) get him back anyway, so he ultimately didn't refuse.
Well, help me out then. As far as I know a birthright baby becoming a citizen by birth does not change the citizenship status of its parents. It seems to have nothing do do with the citizenship status of the parents, any more than your birth changed the citizenship status of your parents.Sure you do. But that poor supreme court just does not know it.
It’s pretty sad that elected representatives, sworn to uphold and protect the Constitution and the citizens of this country can’t be bothered to do their job because they are always looking for that next power grab, and I agree that the only way it will be settled is to take it to the Supreme Court.I do not see this particular issue be settled by congress. It first needs to be determined what the constitution means here. This is why Trump brought this to the court with his executive order. He knew it would be challenged as unconstitutional. He wanted this issue settled. So, now it will be.
Also, slaves didnt enter the country illegally. They were brought here against their will, and we owed them the right to be citizens. People coming here illegally, as opposed to doing it the legal way, shouldn’t be granted anything except a free ride home.Slavery is something else entirely. If you are stolen from one country and forcibly taken to another, I have no issues with your children being a citizen. Most slaves had no way to get home. We are talking about people who come here on their own voluntarily.
This effectively illustrates how the court system is a joke.SCOTUS Limits Federal Judges’ Ability to Block Executive Actions Nationwide
In a sweeping ruling, the Supreme Court limited the ability of federal judges to block executive actions throughout the country through nationwide injunctions, greatly affecting how parties seek judicial relief going forward.The court’s 6-3 ruling Friday, with all six GOP-appointed justices in the majority, deals a significant blow to legal challenges against President Donald Trump’s extreme executive orders and other actions, many of which have been blocked or temporarily put on hold through nationwide injunctions.
What should happen is that the parents should be sent home. If they have someone to leave the child with till they return legally they can do that. If they want to keep the child with them, they can take the child back to their country with them and the child is free to return when the parents return legally.Well, help me out then. As far as I know a birthright baby becoming a citizen by birth does not change the citizenship status of its parents. It seems to have nothing do do with the citizenship status of the parents, any more than your birth changed the citizenship status of your parents.
What does the Supreme Court know that I don't?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?