***Official Political Discussion Thread***

The birthright citizenship discussion is interesting from a legal perspective
“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.”

It’s the constitution. The course of action is either getting a constitutional convention to amend it or a SC ruling interpreting the 14th amendment differently, which would go against a lot of previous precedent.

There has been no ruling on children of illegal immigrants but the SC has reaffirmed the common understanding of birthright citizenship multiple times. There is many decades worth of precedent in both the SC interpretations and rulings and Congress’ interpretations.

The key 1898 US v. Wong Kim Ark SC case specifically opined on the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” language and stated it was meant to exclude (besides Native Americans on tribal property) just 2 groups; diplomats and their children and the children of enemy occupiers.

The amendment was a direct response to the notorious Dred Scott SC ruling.

The widely accepted interpretation of birthright citizenship is also enshrined in a number of congressional statutes.
 
russia.. saudi arabia..

giphy.gif





















































giphy.gif
 
Yeah that has bolton written all over it...

These dummy deplorables wanna argue the constitution when it suits their needs & then argue against it when it doesn’t. “Moronical”...

This is actually the first time I’ve ever voted early... Had to resist the urge to tell them deplorables approaching me while in the parking lot to “get the hell away from me you damned white supremacist!”
B1792E80-EBFA-4368-9E2A-651E898C3397.jpeg
 
Last edited:
dwalk31 dwalk31

Why don't you ever want to talk about the surge in politically motivated violence and terrorism that we've seen from right wing extremists since Trump was elected?

You have more negative things to say about immigrant women and children than you do about mass murderers and mail bombers

Why is that?
 
dwalk31 dwalk31

Why don't you ever want to talk about the surge in politically motivated violence and terrorism that we've seen from right wing extremists since Trump was elected?

You have more negative things to say about immigrant women and children than you do about mass murderers and mail bombers

Why is that?

I have not said anything negative about immigrant women, men and children.

I am open to discuss anything. What would you like to discuss?
 
Sociologist John Skrentny has a very interesting theory
You do realize that a theory, scientifically speaking, is a hypothesis that has been proven true, don't you?

And the examples provided of countries with jus sangini and jus soli citizenship woven in their laws are not hypothetical. That is what happens in real life.

So how about you stop annoying people and realize that what drives your president is not merely application of the law, but the desire to make laws that satisfy the worst of his base?
 
You do realize that a theory, scientifically speaking, is a hypothesis that has been proven true, don't you?

And the examples provided of countries with jus sangini and jus soli citizenship woven in their laws are not hypothetical. That is what happens in real life.

So how about you stop annoying people and realize that what drives your president is not merely application of the law, but the desire to make laws that satisfy the worst of his base?

A scientific theory isn't always true. It's accepted to be true. A scientific law is true every time.
 
My dear mammy home schooled me and taught me that gravity is just a theory and how to field strip and reassemble an AR-15 blindfolded.
 
Back
Top Bottom