Page 407 of 1005 FirstFirst ... 307357397405406407408409417457507907 ... LastLast
Results 4,061 to 4,070 of 10044

Thread: Things that made you laugh today (Political Version)

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelston View Post
    You seem to be confused with what the word jurisdiction means. A basic law class will tell you it has a few different meanings, one of which covers citizenship and how legal authority effects that. Trump is arguing that case. Of course they are still criminally liable when committing crimes in the US, don't be stupid. Don't worry, the courts will take care of all this.
    I promise you Gelston, I'm not the one who is confused about this.

    This is settled case law and has been for a very long time. I encourage you to read more objective pieces on the subject as it's clear to me that you're getting your information from inaccurate sources with agendas.

  2. #4062
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    31,094
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by time4fun View Post
    I promise you Gelston, I'm not the one who is confused about this.

    This is settled case law and has been for a very long time. I encourage you to read more objective pieces on the subject as it's clear to me that you're getting your information from inaccurate sources with agendas.
    My information is directly from the law. I haven't placed an opinion anywhere. I have stated WHAT Trump is saying. WHAT is going to happen, and WHO is going to determine it. Nothing else. I haven't even said whether I agree with it or not. Of course, your toxic attitude has you in constant attack mode.
    Last edited by Gelston; 10-31-2018 at 04:11 PM.
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

  3. #4063

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by time4fun View Post
    I promise you Gelston, I'm not the one who is confused about this.

    This is settled case law and has been for a very long time. I encourage you to read more objective pieces on the subject as it's clear to me that you're getting your information from inaccurate sources with agendas.
    Nothing is "settled case law." That's just a dumb talking points leftists such as yourself trot out when you want to talk about shit like abortion.

    The second amendment is very clear on gun rights yet that is constantly in and out of the courts, whereas the 14th amendment is ambiguous as shit.
    Last edited by Tgo01; 10-31-2018 at 04:19 PM.

  4. #4064

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tgo01 View Post
    Nothing is "settled case law." That's just a dumb talking points leftists such as yourself trot out when you want to talk about shit like abortion.

    The second amendment is very clear on gun rights yet that is constantly in and out of the courts, whereas the 14th amendment is ambiguous as shit.
    “This is settled case law.” -time4fun

    “Omg we can’t confirm Kavanaugh or else he’s going to overturn Roe v Wade!!!” -also time4fun
    Last edited by Methais; 10-31-2018 at 04:20 PM.
    Discord: Methais#5420
    [Private]-GSIV:Nyatherra: "Until this moment i forgot that i changed your name to Biff Muffbanger on Lnet"
    Quote Originally Posted by Back View Post
    I am a retard. I'm disabled. I'm poor. I'm black. I'm gay. I'm transgender. I'm a woman. I'm diagnosed with cancer. I'm a human being.
    Quote Originally Posted by time4fun View Post
    So here's the deal- I am just horrible



  5. #4065
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    A Corporate Republic
    Posts
    12,647

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by time4fun View Post
    He's incorrect. The amendment language doesn't give any such qualifications.



    A child born in the US is *always* here legally unless they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US (in which case we're talking about either foreign invaders or diplomats). You are maligning US citizens right now, and it's gross.
    You're retarded.

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelston View Post
    My information is directly from the law. I haven't placed an opinion anywhere. I have stated WHAT Trump is saying. WHAT is going to happen, and WHO is going to determine it. Nothing else. I haven't even said whether I agree with it or not. Of course, your toxic attitude has you in constant attack mode.
    If your information were directly from "the law"- we wouldn't be having this conversation. The jurisdiction clause, by the way, was primarily put there to deal with the issue of Native American reservations (and preemptively foreign invaders)- though it also applies to people with diplomatic immunity. There was never any intention of precluding people who were born to undocumented immigrants.

    Because, in theory, this is supposed to be a country where you don't lose rights based on who your parents are. And SCOTUS agrees:

    Elk v Wilkins
    Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.

    Also allow me to also re-narrate this conversation for you:

    1) I pointed out that birthright citizenship is literally written into the Constitution

    2) YOU then jumped in and made an inaccurate statement to disagree

    3) I then corrected you

    4) You then held fast to your clearly incorrect interpretation and accused me of failing to understand the situation

    5) I pointed out that you were the one who misunderstood

    6) You went into victim mode and called me toxic

    Find a mirror. Look into it really hard.
    Last edited by time4fun; 10-31-2018 at 04:39 PM.

  7. #4067
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Mars
    Posts
    31,094
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by time4fun View Post
    If your information were directly from "the law"- we wouldn't be having this conversation. The jurisdiction clause, by the way, was primarily put there to deal with the issue of Native American reservations (and preemptively foreign invaders)- though it also applies to people with diplomatic immunity. There was never any intention of precluding people who were born to undocumented immigrants.

    Because, in theory, this is supposed to be a country where you don't lose rights based on who your parents are. And SCOTUS agrees:

    Elk v Wilkins



    Also allow me to also re-narrate this conversation for you:

    1) I pointed out that birthright citizenship is literally written into the Constitution

    2) YOU then jumped in and made an inaccurate statement to disagree

    3) I then corrected you

    4) You then held fast to your clearly incorrect interpretation and accused me of failing to understand the situation

    5) I pointed out that you were the one who misunderstood

    6) You went into victim mode and called me toxic

    Find a mirror. Look into it really hard.
    Again, I only ever pointed out the argument being made. You corrected nothing because you aren't a court. Again, you are not the decider on this issue. I'm not either. You can't correct shit about it.
    Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam

  8. #4068

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by time4fun View Post
    If your information were directly from "the law"- we wouldn't be having this conversation. The jurisdiction clause, by the way, was primarily put there to deal with the issue of Native American reservations (and preemptively foreign invaders)- though it also applies to people with diplomatic immunity.
    So many exceptions carved out for this "ALL persons" argument, yet supposedly it doesn't preclude people residing in the country illegally. Weird.

    Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.
    Hilarious you bring this case up, the case whereupon the supreme court decided that an American Indian born on a reservation wasn't under the jurisdiction of the US and thus was not a US citizen. The supreme court has never overturned this decision by the way.

    Not to mention the quote you cited is clearly referring to LEGAL RESIDENTS of the US, which American Indians are and were at that time, it is obviously not referring to illegal aliens.

    You really should stop owning yourself so hard.
    Last edited by Tgo01; 10-31-2018 at 04:52 PM.

  9. #4069
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    4,267

    Default

    It's a PR stunt to get blood and soil racists who don't understand the law worked up before the election. From this thread, I can tell it is working pretty well on most of the usual suspects here, though Rocktar is level-headed enough to recognize this doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of actually affecting how citizenship status is adjudicated. A court challenge is probably the only realistic remedy here which will be a huge waste of money and time, but I guess it will be good to have a crystal clear ruling on this exact question eventually.

    Do any of you have a serious legal analysis you can link to that supports your interpretation of the 14th amendment?
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick McGoohan
    I am not a number, I am a free man!

  10. #4070
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    With your mom
    Posts
    5,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gelston View Post
    My information is directly from the law. I haven't placed an opinion anywhere. I have stated WHAT Trump is saying. WHAT is going to happen, and WHO is going to determine it. Nothing else. I haven't even said whether I agree with it or not. Of course, your toxic attitude has you in constant attack mode.
    You do realize you are dealing with a textbook narcissist right? I’m serious here.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •