Nope. That only excludes children born in the US to foreign diplomats & ministers, and those who have renounced their citizenship.Wrong!!! That would just ignore this part. Obviously
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nope. That only excludes children born in the US to foreign diplomats & ministers, and those who have renounced their citizenship.Wrong!!! That would just ignore this part. Obviously
No it doesn't. Literally that means "that they must be under the sovereignty of the USA". Obviously, someone here illegally would not be.Nope. That only excludes children born in the US to foreign diplomats & ministers, and those who have renounced their citizenship.
View attachment 8471791
She can flop back and forth and pick any ethnicity as long as it's ABW (anything but white) and she'll still get the black vote.The funny part is that now she has to "prove" she's black which is gonna be tough because of all the pics of her dressed like an Indian or talking about her Indian-American heritage etc. She's just a power hungry cunt who will do whatever it takes to win.
Obviously, it's a completely ridiculous perversion and it can be corrected too. Now is the time to do so, once Trump dog is back in there and pubs have control of congress. Of course the pubs in congress would have to actually deliver which is exceedingly rare. Just like "repeal and replace" that we heard a million times and so many got elected on, then traitor mcstain screwed us all. However.... had the pubs had a very simple plan of letting insurance compete across states lines and a few other simple things to replace obummercare with, it wouldn't have been so hard to do because there would have been no excuse.If you’re here illegally, how are your kids legal? If I rob a bank I can’t just give the cash to my kids and they can keep it?
Sadly, that seems to be true. It's really confusing but that does seem to be how it isShe can flop back and forth and never pick an ethnicity as long as it's ABW (anything but white) and still get the black vote,
Not really. In fact its pretty obvious. They hate whitey and his country, except for the free shit and special priveledges they get with their 'disadvantaged / direspected' status.Sadly, that seems to be true. It's really confusing but that does seem to be how it is
I meant its confusing as to "why that seems to always be the case". Not confused about what it isNot really. In fact its pretty obvious. They hate whitey and his country, except for the free shit and special priveledges they get with their 'disadvantaged / direspected' status.
Wrong again my friend - children born in the United States are granted all the rights and privileges of US citizenship, regardless of the immigration status of their parents, whether you like it not. But that's beside the point when we're discussing Kamala Harris - her parents were here legally when she was born and she is a US citizen.No it doesn't. Literally that means "that they must be under the sovereignty of the USA". Obviously, someone here illegally would not be.
Yeah no shit Sherlock. Are you this stupid? I've already said that we've been doing it for a while, that DOES NOT MAKE IT CONSTITUTIONAL.Wrong again my friend - children born in the United States are granted all the rights and privileges of US citizenship, regardless of the immigration status of their parents, whether you like it not. But that's beside the point when we're discussing Kamala Harris - her parents were here legally when she was born and she is a US citizen.
Absolutely! He needs to stick to the important topics, and then shut the fuck up.Absolutely.
Honestly I think Trump is better off just staying away from all of that and let others attack her with that (like black Republicans). Trump needs to HAMMER on Economy (especially with covid sugar high money petering out and recession looming), THE ILLEGALS/ Border, and this insanity of letting men into women's sports and in particular, destroying title 9, and crime. Kamie-mala has an absolutely horrible record and those are the things that black males are concerned about just like all of us are.
The newest one out today is that Trump took a 10 million dollar bribe from Egypt back in 2017. Federal authorities are looking into it.
Again, Trump didn't do a G**damn thing wrong. He was attacked right out of the gate by that hate filled racist that would have piled on him with fists flying if she could.Absolutely! He needs to stick to the important topics, and then shut the fuck up.
OK Mr. Big Brains, care to tell where you got your JD from?Yeah no shit Sherlock. Are you this stupid? I've already said that we've been doing it for a while, that DOES NOT MAKE IT CONSTITUTIONAL.
How about you go look at why the 14th amendment even exists,(since that's what is used to grant all of these anchor babies citizenship ). Why is the 14th amendment even there, what was going on at the time, and what did the 14th amendment guarantee? You go educate yourself then come back and discuss it.OK Mr. Big Brains, care to tell where you got your JD from?
Any & all case law to support your statement would also be very interesting to see
Wrong again my friend - children born in the United States are granted all the rights and privileges of US citizenship, regardless of the immigration status of their parents, whether you like it not. But that's beside the point when we're discussing Kamala Harris - her parents were here legally when she was born and she is a US citizen.
OK Mr. Big Brains, care to tell where you got your JD from?
Any & all case law to support your statement would also be very interesting to see
So, a few posts earlier you said you didn't know what an anchor baby was. Then you're suddenly a constitutional scholar on the subject?Sounds plausible, but how do you know her immigration status?
No, I asked the previous poster to define that concept - as a heads up "anchor babies" do not exist & and having a child here in the US is not a viable immigration strategy for the parents, since it would take over 26 years for the parents to get citizenship that route.So, a few posts earlier you said you didn't know what an anchor baby was. Then you're suddenly a constitutional scholar on the subject?
To reiterate, the section 1. of the 14th Amendment says "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."How about you go look at why the 14th amendment even exists,(since that's what is used to grant all of these anchor babies citizenship ).
Get your liberal crap out of here, we ain't buying it. As usual, your liberal tripe includes leaving out the other half of the 14th amendment, just as I pointed out before. You can't dispute what that meaning is so you repeate this garbage again. Typical liberal crap.To reiterate, the section 1. of the 14th Amendment says "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."
This means that children born in the US (with some rare exceptions) are automatically US citizens as defined by the Constitution. You or any other dimwit claiming otherwise doesn't change this. I can explain this to you, but I can't understand it for you - if you're too dumb to get it, I really genuinely feel sorry for you.
Again, let's see the case law backing up your claim. Don't have any? Surprise surprise.That isn't what it meant when it was written nor does it now.
Son, I'm as conservative as they get.Get your liberal crap out of here, we ain't buying it.
If you're in the US, you are "subject to the the jurisdiction thereof" - meaning that you are subject to the laws of the land. Diplomats are an exception to this, hence their children do not become US citizens even if born here. If you're so illiterate that you don't understand this, I can't really help you." AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF"
This needs to be adjudictated at SCOTUS and the actual laws of this country enforced before we are turned into South America, of which we are well on our way.
I'm not going to continue to argue with a liberal who can't and won't answer anything and then wants me to site "case law"... A person can't belong to another country, be in this country illegally, and also be "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". You can go look up the various interpretations the court has had. Previous court cases have focuses on various people who had legal status, yet didn't fit neatly into a category. This is obviously not the cases for illegals, and why other countries around the world don't allow this insanity that we do. The only reason it's been allowed here is because of our bought and paid for politicians, but that doesn't make it constitutional. Now buzz off romneyAgain, let's see the case law backing up your claim. Don't have any? Surprise surprise.
Son, I'm as conservative as they get.
If you're in the US, you are "subject to the the jurisdiction thereof" - meaning that you are subject to the laws of the land. Diplomats are an exception to this, hence their children do not become US citizens even if born here. If you're so illiterate that you don't understand this, I can't really help you.
This is starting to feel about the same as trying to explain OCW to my German short hair pointer, so I'm out.