America does not have operational control of the border/ AZ desert/ TREASON.

You'll be dead before it happens, probably even your grandkids, but the demographics are inevitable.

But its okay, "America" is always in a state of flux. Constant social change is pretty much the only thing consistent you can say about our culture. About the best we can hope for is a gradual evolution. Radical changes are usually the result of jackasses looking to be famous/rich and never end well for anyone.
 
Last edited:
You'll be dead before it happens, probably even your grandkids, but the demographics are inevitable.
But its okay, "America" is always in a state of flux. Constant social change is pretty much the only thing consistent you can say about our culture. About the best we can hope for is a gradual evolution. Radical changes are usually the result of jackasses looking to be famous/rich and never end well for anyone.

O'well that's Life Live 'til ya Die.
 
That is exactly what the 14th Amendment says. The SCOTUS has ruled on US laws regarding immigration guided by what the amendment SAYS not what YOU wish it says.

You guys are missing the point. The problem isn't the "anchor babies" which are a tiny sub-percentage of the "people" that come here illegally and would be covered by the 14th, the problem is immigrants are economically incentivized to come here and we don't enforce the current, perfectly constitutional laws that are on the books right now and we have an POTUS who is actively circumventing it by executive order.

No that is not what the 14th amendment says, and that was not the intent when it was created. You can't just bold particular parts of the 14th and not read it as a whole. Even the Wong Kim Ark case cited earlier, although an Unconstitutional ruling, does not go that far. It is a broad ruling, but it does not say that is the end result intent of the 14th. And either way it's still an incorrect ruling.

Once again Congress has been given authority by the Constitution to make laws on immigration. They can pretty much shut down the entire country to immigration if they wanted to do so. The courts have no say in the matter, other than to rule things like amnesty are Unconstitutional which they are correctly doing now in regards to Obama's amnesty - while spineless republicans in congress sit around and do nothing.
 
No that is not what the 14th amendment says, and that was not the intent when it was created. You can't just bold particular parts of the 14th and not read it as a whole. Even the Wong Kim Ark case cited earlier, although an Unconstitutional ruling, does not go that far. It is a broad ruling, but it does not say that is the end result intent of the 14th. And either way it's still an incorrect ruling.

LOL. Dude.... The ONLY part of the 14th Amendment that has anything to do with citizenship is Section 1. The rest of it was rules to deal with getting the Confederate States back into the Union and allowing their politicians to get their cushy jobs in DC back. Put down your wish-colored glasses.

Once again Congress has been given authority by the Constitution to make laws on immigration. They can pretty much shut down the entire country to immigration if they wanted to do so. The courts have no say in the matter, other than to rule things like amnesty are Unconstitutional which they are correctly doing now in regards to Obama's amnesty - while spineless republicans in congress sit around and do nothing.

Yes, Congress could make a law to shut down immigration to this country. But guess what? The prego mamas that make it in (and their would be, because we can't even keep tons and tons of drugs out of this country), their little ninos would be Americanos.
 
Last edited:
Tell the Native Americans that.

Tell what to the Indians (they don't even call themselves Native Americans)? It was their fault for being on our land before we got here. :hat:

But speaking of Indians, and their relationship with the 14th and the Civil Rights act, they are further proof that the 14th doesn't mean that just because you are born here, you are a citizen. If you are subject to a foreign government (in the case of illegals, and some legals for that matter), you are not a citizen just because you are born here.
 
Well, then there are **** load of illegal immigrants here if you are going to follow that rule since no one just materialized here without having come from somewhere else. Probably the only actual US citizens will be the "Indians". Do you think they will deport us?
 
Last edited:
Meh...My Relatives came through Ellis Island on My Dad's side. LEGALLY. My Mom's side came through before the USA was a country. They were naturalized when we became an independent nation.( British Citizens) Bet that's the case for 99.9% of us on the ODT. The rest of yall is Aliens.
 
Well, then there are **** load of illegal immigrants here if you are going to follow that rule since no one just materialized here without having come from somewhere else. Probably the only actual US citizens will be the "Indians". Do you think they will deport us?
The point is the 14th did NOT cover Indians nor their papooses. They didn't become citizens until 1924 in an act specifically for them which AGAIN is why you chosing to NOT bold the parts of the 14th that actually matter is the relevant issue.
 
Well, then there are **** load of illegal immigrants here if you are going to follow that rule since no one just materialized here without having come from somewhere else. Probably the only actual US citizens will be the "Indians". Do you think they will deport us?

No that was the rule as determined by the Civil Rights Act and 14th. Indians were subjects to their tribes and not necessarily citizens of the US unless they gave up their tribal affiliation, joining the military, and a couple of other ways. That was later changed with the Indian Citizenship Act

But Indians, and how they were treated in the 14th, are proof that the 14th did not mean that just because you are born here, you are an automatic citizen.
 
Back
Top Bottom