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.

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.

On 10/30/2018 10:06 AM, 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's quite a stretch and all have loads of restrictions.
Tell us how many allow it to illegals.

Frank wrote:
On 10/30/2018 10:06 AM, 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's quite a stretch and all have loads of restrictions.
Tell us how many allow it to illegals.

And are all third world countries besides the US and Canada, but canada is
becoming one
No Russia, China, Japan, UK or others

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.

On 10/30/2018 08:06 AM, micky wrote:
Dunghead Donnie lies again. Claims the US is the only country with
birthright citizenship when actually there are 30.

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

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

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.

Cindy Hamilton

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.

Cindy Hamilton

Why stop there? What about "tourist babies?" Might as well junk the 14th.
After all, it's just a Constitutional Amendment.

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 8:48:33 AM UTC-4, Vic Smith wrote:
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.

Cindy Hamilton

Why stop there? What about "tourist babies?" Might as well junk the 14th.
After all, it's just a Constitutional Amendment.

So, you're in favor of tourist babies? Where some foreigner lies about their
purpose of a visit, comes here to puke out a baby, just so that the baby will
be a US citizen? Then the baby becomes an anchor baby for the rest of the clan.
Another example of how libs got Trump elected.

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.

Typical Democrat. Start some BS about what Trump is doing with immigration
law, then cop out when asked where you stand on it. If you know that Trump
is a dung head, then you should know where you stand on the issue you're
bitching about. If you don't then maybe you should just shut up.

On 10/31/2018 06:48 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
Why stop there? What about "tourist babies?" Might as well junk the 14th.
After all, it's just a Constitutional Amendment.

works for me. It should go the way of the 18th. For that matter anything
past the 12th could go.

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

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
apples and oranges. The 14th was specifically passed to include the children
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.
Should babies born to illegal aliens be given birthright citizenship or
should it be ended?

In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 06:37:21 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
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.

Typical Democrat.

Typical Republican complaint.

Start some BS

It's not BS.

about what Trump is doing with immigration law,

And that's not what the post I STARTED with was about. The two points I
made had nothing to do with whether they should be citizens or not. It
was about the dunghead lying about how many countries had birthright
citizenship (he said 1. It's 30) and about what it means when he says
"They're saying". If the thread topic drifts away from what I was
discussing, you have no business expecting me to have a position on some
new topic and you have no business saying I started that topic.

then cop out when asked where you stand on it. If you know that Trump
is a dung head, then you should know where you stand on the issue you're
bitching about.

That doesn't follow at all. He was a dunghead long before this came up,
and I had decided where I stood, as a bystander, long before Stumpie
appeared on the scene. His dungheadedness doesn't require me to change
my position.

How come you're logical until someone doesn't say what you want?

If you don't then maybe you should just shut up.

Make me. Even though it's out of my hands and I don't have a position
yes or no, I can still tell when Donnie is a dunghead.

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.

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.


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

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?

On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 06:34:55 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 8:48:33 AM UTC-4, Vic Smith wrote:
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.

Cindy Hamilton

Why stop there? What about "tourist babies?" Might as well junk the 14th.
After all, it's just a Constitutional Amendment.

So, you're in favor of tourist babies? Where some foreigner lies about their
purpose of a visit, comes here to puke out a baby, just so that the baby will
be a US citizen? Then the baby becomes an anchor baby for the rest of the clan.
Another example of how libs got Trump elected.


Those evil babies! What to do, what to do?
Pregnant women should be barred from entry to the U.S., Mr Trump.
BTW, I voted for Hillary Clinton.
One of 3 million more voters who didn't want Trump elected.
What part did you play "Mr. conservative?"
You're no conservative if you're willing to change the Constitution by executive order.
You're a Trumpet, and an asshole. My, my, I never would have suspected. LOL.

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 9:51:38 AM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
On 10/31/2018 06:48 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
Why stop there? What about "tourist babies?" Might as well junk the 14th.
After all, it's just a Constitutional Amendment.

works for me. It should go the way of the 18th. For that matter anything
past the 12th could go.

Abolishing the 19th would certainly save me a lot of effort
every other November.

Cindy Hamilton

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 11:00:30 AM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 06:37:21 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
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.

Typical Democrat.

Typical Republican complaint.


No, every Republican/Conservative in this thread has stated where they
are on the issue of illegal aliens and birthright citizenship. We know
where we stand and we can back it up. And THAT is the real issue here,
not the minor issue that Trump got something factually wrong again.
That he's factually wrong about how many countries allow birthright
citizenship isn't a long term issue, it will be forgotten in a week.
The illegal alien birthright problem is a real issue, one that's out
of control and getting worse. It has a direct effect on the country
today, tomorrow and twenty years from now. Wise up.
You run and hide and won't state where you stand.
And I suspect it's because you agree that illegal alien birthright
citizenship should be ended, but you won't admit it because it's also
Trump's position. Democrats just can't admit that Trump is right on
anything.





Start some BS

It's not BS.

The Trump aspect of it pretty much is BS compared to the real issue,
which is that Trump is on the right side of the ISSUE. Where are you
on the ISSUE?





about what Trump is doing with immigration law,

And that's not what the post I STARTED with was about.

I know, you want to play the typical Democrat lib game of hit and run.
How did it work out for you?



The two points I
made had nothing to do with whether they should be citizens or not. It
was about the dunghead lying about how many countries had birthright
citizenship (he said 1. It's 30) and about what it means when he says
"They're saying". If the thread topic drifts away from what I was
discussing, you have no business expecting me to have a position on some
new topic and you have no business saying I started that topic.

then cop out when asked where you stand on it. If you know that Trump
is a dung head, then you should know where you stand on the issue you're
bitching about.

That doesn't follow at all. He was a dunghead long before this came up,
and I had decided where I stood, as a bystander, long before Stumpie
appeared on the scene. His dungheadedness doesn't require me to change
my position.

How come you're logical until someone doesn't say what you want?

If you don't then maybe you should just shut up.

Make me. Even though it's out of my hands and I don't have a position
yes or no, I can still tell when Donnie is a dunghead.



You're a dung head too because you won't fess up and give us your position
on the immigration issue. You brought the subject here, you created the
thread. Man up or stop bitching.

On 10/31/18 11:46 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 06:34:55 -0700 (PDT), trader_4 wrote:

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 8:48:33 AM UTC-4, Vic Smith wrote:
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:


Those evil babies! What to do, what to do?
Pregnant women should be barred from entry to the U.S., Mr Trump.
BTW, I voted for Hillary Clinton.
One of 3 million more voters who didn't want Trump elected.

Just curious: How many of those three million "voters" we
a- Actually alive
b- Actually citizens
c- Properly registered
d- Voted only once in their correct precinct
e- Didn't vote again in some other location
f- Compensated in some form for their vote
g- Had an IQ higher than room temperature
h- Didn't drool on their ballot or touch screen
i- Knew what day of the week it was
j- Could correctly name their mayor and governor
k- And had even the vaguest notion of what kind of person Mrs. Clinton
actually is...

--
Ever notice the shortage of "armed law-abiding citizen€� victim tragedy
stories in the news?

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 2:18:39 PM UTC-4, Wade Garrett wrote:

j- Could correctly name their mayor and governor

Not everybody has a mayor. I have a township supervisor. I'd
have to look up their name. Why would it be important to know
that?

Cindy Hamilton

On 10/30/18 8:16 AM, 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.


perhaps you should call them future taxpayers

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. And the next question is, how many illegals
are coming into the country? If you have good immigration enforcement
and the stream of illegals is small, it's not such a big problem.
When you're being flooded, with caravans on the way, then it is.

On 10/31/18 2:45 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 2:18:39 PM UTC-4, Wade Garrett wrote:

j- Could correctly name their mayor and governor

Not everybody has a mayor. I have a township supervisor. I'd
have to look up their name. Why would it be important to know
that?

Cindy Hamilton


Ya' kinda missed the point there, Cindy.

But to answer your micro question- it reflects if you're oriented enough
to time, place, person, and surroundings as well as informed enough to
cast an intelligent ballot. No doubt you've hear the term "low
information voter" and understand how susceptible to undue influence
they are.

A knuckle-head vote counts exactly the same as your sober, measured,
well-analyzed, objective, insightful one no doubt cast in the best
interests of your town, county, state and nation ;-)

--
Ever notice the shortage of "armed law-abiding citizen€� victim tragedy
stories in the news?

On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 12:31:20 -0700, ZZyXX
wrote:

On 10/30/18 8:16 AM, 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.


perhaps you should call them future taxpayers

Ah that it would be the case. The issue is how many are just here for
the free stuff.
Personally I would replace ICE with the IRS. If you are here working
and paying your taxes, welcome to America.

On 10/31/18 5:29 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 12:31:20 -0700, ZZyXX
wrote:

On 10/30/18 8:16 AM, 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.


perhaps you should call them future taxpayers

Ah that it would be the case. The issue is how many are just here for
the free stuff.
Personally I would replace ICE with the IRS. If you are here working
and paying your taxes, welcome to America.

well pinocchio will tell you they are all terrorists

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


And the next question is, how many illegals
are coming into the country? If you have good immigration enforcement
and the stream of illegals is small, it's not such a big problem.
When you're being flooded, with caravans on the way, then it is.

On 10/31/2018 12:45 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 2:18:39 PM UTC-4, Wade Garrett wrote:

j- Could correctly name their mayor and governor
Not everybody has a mayor. I have a township supervisor. I'd
have to look up their name. Why would it be important to know
that?

I've got three county commisioners and not a clue who they are or what
they do. I can name the mayor of the city and even identify him by sight
but I can't vote for him.

On 10/31/2018 06:29 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 12:31:20 -0700, ZZyXX
wrote:

On 10/30/18 8:16 AM, 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.


perhaps you should call them future taxpayers

Ah that it would be the case. The issue is how many are just here for
the free stuff.
Personally I would replace ICE with the IRS. If you are here working
and paying your taxes, welcome to America.


I read one study that concluded illegals have a better ROI than Native
Americans.

In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 14:23:09 -0700 (PDT), 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.

It would be nice if someone from the media did this, but someone on one
side or the other could also do it. The anti-change-law folks have
presented their case, that 30 nations have birthright, so it seems fair
for the pro-change would present a rebuttal, if it turns out that a
substantial share of the 30 do make an exception for illegals. BUT, that
would require them to admit that there are more countries than just the
US and it would make Stumpie look either stupid or a liar, so that's a
problem for them.

And the next question is, how many illegals
are coming into the country? If you have good immigration enforcement
and the stream of illegals is small, it's not such a big problem.
When you're being flooded, with caravans on the way, then it is.

I woudln't be at all surprised if the current caravan was started by a
few of Trump's agents, just to get his voters worked up.

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/

On 10/31/2018 8:05 PM, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 14:23:09 -0700 (PDT), 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.

It would be nice if someone from the media did this, but someone on one
side or the other could also do it. The anti-change-law folks have
presented their case, that 30 nations have birthright, so it seems fair
for the pro-change would present a rebuttal, if it turns out that a
substantial share of the 30 do make an exception for illegals. BUT, that
would require them to admit that there are more countries than just the
US and it would make Stumpie look either stupid or a liar, so that's a
problem for them.

And the next question is, how many illegals
are coming into the country? If you have good immigration enforcement
and the stream of illegals is small, it's not such a big problem.
When you're being flooded, with caravans on the way, then it is.

I woudln't be at all surprised if the current caravan was started by a
few of Trump's agents, just to get his voters worked up.


Just like the moronic effort to pay women to lie that Mueller sexually
accosted them. They chose a date that he was on jury duty.

Republicans base their entire campaign on fear of everything that the
repubs make up.

On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 19:55:45 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

On 10/31/2018 12:45 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 2:18:39 PM UTC-4, Wade Garrett wrote:

j- Could correctly name their mayor and governor
Not everybody has a mayor. I have a township supervisor. I'd
have to look up their name. Why would it be important to know
that?

I've got three county commisioners and not a clue who they are or what
they do. I can name the mayor of the city and even identify him by sight
but I can't vote for him.
In our community we have 6 mayors plus regional chairman for the
county, townships, and tri-cities - plus ward councillors.

Get to vote for one mayor, one city councillor, one regional
councillor, and chairman.
Then we have MPPs and MPs that we vote for, and the Premier (current
and last several have been total idiot duds) and PM - haven't had a
GOOD one in about 6 cycles or so - likely more

Know them by name and could pick them out of a crowd

On 10/31/2018 09:35 PM, Bob F wrote:
"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."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_v._Wilkins

Children of Honduran citizens, for example, owe allegiance to Honduras.

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.






And the next question is, how many illegals
are coming into the country? If you have good immigration enforcement
and the stream of illegals is small, it's not such a big problem.
When you're being flooded, with caravans on the way, then it is.

On Wednesday, October 31, 2018 at 11:05:13 PM UTC-4, micky wrote:
In alt.home.repair, on Wed, 31 Oct 2018 14:23:09 -0700 (PDT), 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.

It would be nice if someone from the media did this, but someone on one
side or the other could also do it.

Why don't you do it? Oh, I know, you won't say which side you're on.
Coward.




The anti-change-law folks have
presented their case, that 30 nations have birthright, so it seems fair
for the pro-change would present a rebuttal, if it turns out that a
substantial share of the 30 do make an exception for illegals. BUT, that
would require them to admit that there are more countries than just the
US and it would make Stumpie look either stupid or a liar, so that's a
problem for them.

WTF? If only 30 follow birthright, then ~160 don't! And why does it matter
what some other countries do? You have close to that number that follow
Sharia law. Should we do that too?






And the next question is, how many illegals
are coming into the country? If you have good immigration enforcement
and the stream of illegals is small, it's not such a big problem.
When you're being flooded, with caravans on the way, then it is.

I woudln't be at all surprised if the current caravan was started by a
few of Trump's agents, just to get his voters worked up.


It's possible, but it's far more likely it was supported and funded by
the radical libs, aka the Democrats. It's the Democrats that you support
that want open borders and to let that caravan right on in. Still waiting
for your answers:

Where do you stand on the birthright issue?

Where do you stand on sanctuary cities and states?

Do you agree with the Democrats that say ICE should be abolished?

Should we stop that caravan, or just let them right on in?


THOSE are the real issues. But of course you won't weigh in, because you
obviously either agree with your Democratic Party on all that or being the
partisan, you won't say anything negative about them. It's always a
Republican.

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.

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







And the next question is, how many illegals
are coming into the country? If you have good immigration enforcement
and the stream of illegals is small, it's not such a big problem.
When you're being flooded, with caravans on the way, then it is.

On 11/1/18 7:00 AM, trader_4 wrote:
WTF? If only 30 follow birthright, then ~160 don't! And why does it matter
what some other countries do? You have close to that number that follow
Sharia law. Should we do that too?


it matters because it makes the case that pinocchio is suffering from
dementia even stronger