On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 11:37:33 PM UTC-4, Bob F wrote:
On 10/31/2018 8:23 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 11:14:41 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 07:59:07 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 10:47:13 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 03:28:51 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 8:31:26 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Tue, 30 Oct 2018 08:16:15 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 10:06:07 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
Dunghead Donnie lies again. Claims the US is the only country with
birthright citizenship when actually there are 30.

About changit it he said:
"They're saying I can do it with an executive order" When he says
"They're saying" it means one person that he told to say it said it.

That about sums it up for Trump. Now tell us where you stand on this issue,
as a resident diehard Democrat. That is the more important part, the
actual issue. Are you in favor of allowing illegal aliens to come here,
have babies, often at taxpayer's expense, and the baby is automatically
a US citizen? We call them anchor babies.

It's out of my hands. I doubt that the Constitution will be amended
because of this, I doubt if it will pass even one house of Congress, and
if there's a real movement to do it, one guy like me won't make much
difference one way or the other.

It might not require a constitutional amendment. Whether the 14th applies
to illegal immigrants has never been put to the Supreme Court.

Yes it has. A guy on the radio today was describing three cases, one of
which was the children born in the US to slaves who had been smuggled
into the US in violation of the law prohibiting importing slaves. They
were here illegally, but the Supreme Court held that their children,
born here, were citizens.

Cindy Hamilton

If you have that case, I'm sure we'd all be interested in seeing it. But it's

Google is your friend. I don't take notes when I'm in bed.

apples and oranges. The 14th was specifically passed to include the children

You don't even know if the 14th had been passed at that time and yet
you're holding forth.

We don't know because you can't produce the case. Who knows what you heard
and got half right or all wrong.





of slaves, that was one of it's clear intents. Show us where the discussion,
the issue at the time was that "subject to the jurisdiction of", was about
illegal aliens.

And we're still waiting for you to tell us your position on the actual issue.

You can keep waiting. It may teach you patience.

It teaches who the dung head is. YOU brought this issue here, now
you run, dance hide, instead of simply manning up and stating your position.
The ISSUE is the real thing of importance here. What's the problem?
Can't defend your Democrat views? Or is it that you know ending the
birthright for illegal aliens is the right thing to do, but can't admit
it because Trump is the one advocating it? You even admit to
listening to discussions about it on the radio, so obviously you're
interested in it, but yet you won't tell us where you stand?


Should babies born to illegal aliens be given birthright citizenship or
should it be ended?


After 1 minute search:

Well the Republicans made it happen.

"In the infamous 1857 Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Roger Taney
declared that a black man generally couldnt be a United States
citizen€”that he had €œno rights which the white man was bound to
respect.€� Candidate Lincoln campaigned against the decision in 1858 and
1860. Then, under President Lincoln, Attorney General Edward Bates took
on Dred Scott in an 1862 legal opinion arguing that free blacks
generally could be U.S. citizens. Finally, the Republican Congress
enshrined the principle of birthright citizenship in Americas first
major civil rights law, the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Two months later,
Congress included birthright citizenship in its proposed 14th Amendment."

http://time.com/5440454/constitution...t-citizenship/

Dredd Scott can't be the SC case that Micky was talking about because
he claimed that the SC had ruled that a child born to a slave brought
here against their will was a CITIZEN. Knowing Micky, there probably
isn't such a case. And thanks for pointing out that Republicans passed
the first civil rights legislation, after they freed the slaves.