On Thursday, November 1, 2018 at 3:33:22 PM UTC-4, ZZyXX wrote:
On 11/1/18 6:51 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 9:34:09 PM UTC-4, ZZyXX wrote:
On 10/31/18 2:23 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 1:34:18 AM UTC-4, ChairMan wrote:
rbowman wrote:
On 10/30/2018 08:06 AM, micky wrote:
Dunghead Donnie lies again. Claims the US is the only
country with
when actually there are 30.

Excluding Canada that leaves 29 ********s where a lot of
the citizens
appear to want to be someplace else.

Actually it leaves 28, the US is one of the 30, too. Look at
the countries that have already reversed that idiotic idea.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/l...tizenship.html

Another question I haven't seen anyone in the media address is what
is the position of these 30 other countries on births to illegal
aliens? Just because they recognize birthright citizenship for
people in the country legally, doesn't necessarily mean they are
OK with it for illegals.

in the United States the 14th amendment makes it clear that if you are
born here, you are a citizen...not withstanding pinocchio advocating treason


No, it does not make it clear, because the 14th amendment says "subject
to the jurisdiction thereof" and we have never had a SC ruling on what
that means. The second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms,
but you libs have figured out how to put limits on that with laws that
were found to be constitutional. So, obviously it can be done with immigration
too.



All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


you can regulate immigration, but you can't regulate birthright


Thanks for posting exactly what I said. It says "subject to the jurisdiction
thereof". Now let's look at what the discussion was about at the time,
what was said, what was argued when the amendment was passed and what
the intent was. Is an illegal
alien subject to the jurisdiction of the govt? Not in SF, not in CA, not
in NYC, all of which harbor illegals and keep them from being subjected
to the jurisdiction of the federal govt. The 14th was intended to fix the
citizenship issue for children born to freed slaves, not to welcome in
people who are already citizens of another country. And that is what most
of those babies are, by virtue of the fact that the parents are citizens
of a foreign country, the child is generally a citizen of that country
too. Whenever the issue of
citizenship has come up, that has been one primary issue, that citizenship
would not be extended to people who have an allegiance to another country.
When you're an illegal alien from Honduras, your allegiance is still to
Honduras and you're giving the finger to the USA, clearly indicating that
you have no intention of being subject to our jurisdiction, by being here
ILLEGALLY and hiding. This anchor baby BS must end. There is no rational
reason for it period.