It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Targeting Birthright Citizenship With Executive Order

page: 21
20
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 02:34 AM
link   

BTW when Mexico wants to stop illegals they use machine guns mounted on vehicles so you should go there and protest.
Really?

5000 of the Federal Police are in charge of border security, a large number of which utilize armored off road and APC vehicles with machine guns and canons in some cases - part of and in response to our support through Plan Mexico or Mérida Initiative.

There have been many incidents where they have lit up large vehicles on the highway under the auspices of drug traffickers and oops migrants....happens more than anyone would believe.
edit on 31-10-2018 by circuitsports because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 04:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: circuitsports
a reply to: JBurns

The drafter could have never imagined where

Even if he could have imagined it,


cool.
so we can use the same argument in the gun debates then yes?

what they could have imagined arms to be back then...

you guys are hilarious



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Common sense



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 05:17 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

I see posts by you and network dude and others here whose opinions I respect arguing that an amendment is needed because the constitution is clear on this. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. The fact is that very few amendments are passed these days. That really is the "old" way to make a change.

Many of us hate the concept of activist judges. Nevertheless, that has been the modern technique to bring about a change. Make an order, when it goes to court run it up to SCOTUS and get a ruling. Much faster and less messy than all of that ratification business. Even though neither you, me, or Trump thinks this is theoretically the way it should be, that is the way it is today. Why should the Democrats be the only ones to benefit from the system?

Maybe some day things will revert back. Until then, we must go with practical reality.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 05:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: circuitsports




We never imported the child so I would call it a return to sender.

What a surprise.


shouldn't the child be with it's family that still exists? Or should it be sold into the system?



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 08:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: Arnie123

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Arnie123

You do not have to love and respect the country to be a citizen. Give me a break.
Who cares, that's what I what. Patiotism still exist, I'm a nationalist so I'm all for love and respect of MY country.

Tough cookies, nobody cares about when you want if it's a "by any means" circumvention to achieve it.

I say again -- there exists a process for amending. EOs are not it. THAT should make any "patriot's" blood run more than a little cold to ponder in place of that process.
Tell that to barry 😏

Oh and I care what I want, because, I GOT WHAT I WANT 😌

MY POTUS, Repubs in power, you got nothing, keep grasping yo.

Ah, I see. The Constitution then ultimately means nothing to you and your rights at the end of the day, it's just something to control others with, when it suits you. Never mind the legitimate process, let's go balls to the wall and let the amendments be applied and retracted at the whim of any given president's itchy EO finger, actual legitimate process be damned.

Some patriot you are.
Really? It means nothing to leftist, but suddenly it matter whens conservatives talk about it? Lol, give me a break Nyiah, you hold water for leftist and expect us to drink from it, keep your koolaid to yourself.

Libertarian, actually. You'll have a harder time finding a Libertarian that supports changing the Constitution through single-man EOs than you will a Republican.

Tread carefully. Your authoritarian slant is showing.
Sure, like everybody else 🤐 , psst, you're spilling water 😌

My, my. Aren't we sour over getting caught being the farthest thing from Republican today?
Oh, salty are we? I stated what I wanted and also what I WANT which I recieved 😌

Don't throw your ill lifes choices at me because you can't get what you want. Caught? Far from or close enough, who cares? Lol

Let's be clear here.

You do not care if an EO is the origin point of a Constitutional Amendment addition, alteration or retraction. The established process of legally changing the Constitution doesn't mean anything to you, you would rather it be in the hands of ONE person. ONE.

That is not how Democracies, or Republics work. GTFO here.
Cool story, if it pisses you off, Awesome.


This is what the right has become ... if it pisses off the left, it's awesome. Like dealing with my son when he was six years old..



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: circuitsports
a reply to: JBurns

The drafter could have never imagined where

Even if he could have imagined it,


cool.
so we can use the same argument in the gun debates then yes?

what they could have imagined arms to be back then...

you guys are hilarious


No No No you see guns are sacrosanct, they are the most holy thing in this world, and nothing about them can be changed ever, unequivocally, but the rest of that nonsense constitution crap is liberal hippy bull# that should be burned (unless I personally need it then it's American Patriotic duty to stand up and protect it, but mostly we just care about guns).



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 08:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: TinySickTears

originally posted by: circuitsports
a reply to: JBurns

The drafter could have never imagined where

Even if he could have imagined it,


cool.
so we can use the same argument in the gun debates then yes?

what they could have imagined arms to be back then...

you guys are hilarious


No No No you see guns are sacrosanct, they are the most holy thing in this world, and nothing about them can be changed ever, unequivocally, but the rest of that nonsense constitution crap is liberal hippy bull# that should be burned (unless I personally need it then it's American Patriotic duty to stand up and protect it, but mostly we just care about guns).


That's pretty much what it boils down to.
Pretty funny



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: jtrenthacker

So what will it take to be a citizen then? Are we at our quota? Because if its not people born here then who are our future citizens? And are you guys ready yet to admit hes a moron?


To be a citizen you would have to have at least one parent that is a citizen. Or after a good vetting you could be granted citizenship.

I think it is not necessary to do this but I don't care either way. It wouldn't upset me if this was implemented.

Is it going to negatively affect the citizens or positively affect them? That's the question we should be asking. The hell with would be citizens, who cares unless it negatively effects us?



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TinySickTears

The Chinese invented 100 round belt fed machine guns a century before the bill of rights was drafted - Washington commanded canon that with a single shot could mow down a dozen or more.

For anyone to claim the founders couldn't have imagined weapons like the AR15 is insane - it's muzzle energy is between 25 and 100% less than some muskets of the day - people were already hard at work and had in some cases fielded semi automatic weapons at that time.

The AR15 is in many ways a giant step back as within it's effective range (1/3 typically due to projectile shape, material fitment and charge type) most muskets are suitable for dear hunting while the tiny 223 round in the AR15 is considered cruel and illegal to hunt 80 pound deer with in some places- now you swap that out for a 200 pound villain and you better give them a few "tattoos" afghan slang for 223 wounds.
edit on 31-10-2018 by circuitsports because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-10-2018 by circuitsports because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Harry Reid 1993: 'No Sane Country' Would Do Birthright Citizenship; 9-20-1993
0:43


Study: 300K Anchor Babies Born Every Year, Exceeding U.S. Births in 48 States



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: circuitsports

But not smart enough when it comes to the citizenship situation?

Sure



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: jtrenthacker

Seems logical to me. We're only 1 of 2 countries that allow non citizen to give birth here and reward the baby with full citizenship (Canada being the other). That should say something right there. It's dumb, and every other country knows that.

Only a Citizen should be able to give birth to a Citizen. Then the only other way top become one is to be Naturalized.

I've been of the opinion that the 14th Amendment is not being interpreted correctly. It clearly states :

"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."

It seems to me that the writers meant for that to mean all persons born to Citizens. The key phrase is in bold in my quote and deals with jurisdiction.

It doesn't say "ARE subject to the jurisdiction thereof" that would imply that they are subject AFTER birth or Naturalization.

It says "AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof" that implies a condition that has to be met, being born to a citizen or going through the naturalization process. A subtle, but to me, a very clear distinction.

I'm hoping this stupidity ends. It's a clear draw for people to come here, give birth and have an "Anchor Baby" This is why other countries don't do it.
edit on 31-10-2018 by poncho1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Then the loophole will continue to exist, and we will continue to have illegals from all over the world who will have children here. Nothing will change. Now, think about this for a moment. The 14th amendment was written to give citizenship to all freed slaves and their children. Slaves were brought here by force. Illegals are coming here by choice, and are openly breaking our laws and feeding the identity theft crime wave, among other crimes.

The 14th was never written for illegals to use it to give their children citizenship. Many of the illegals already in the U.S. are criminals, while it might be true that the majority are not the worse criminals, what is true is that these same illegals are the ones feeding the identity theft crime wave that has been plaguing this nation, and will only get worse.

If it is possible that by executive order, if not by amendment (which with how Democrats/Liberals have been showing lately they want more people to flood the U.S.), this loophole can be closed then it will give no incentive to illegals to keep flooding the U.S.

Did anyone post or watched how one of the illegals from the latest caravan was saying he was asking for asylum in the U.S. to ask for a pardon to his attempted murder in Honduras?... While not all of them will ask for this sort of "asylum," this caravan, like many before it, has many different kinds of criminals who will continue with their crime waves in the U.S.

There are already over 10,000 members of MS-13, and I will bet you $100 that there are many MS-13 gang members in this caravan. BTW, not all MS-13 gang members have visible tattoos. Many have them only in their chest and back, and on shoulders, which can be easily hidden with regular clothes.

Apart from MS-13, the Mexican drug cartels and other gangs and cartels are also using these caravans to smuggle their people into one of the richest countries in the world...

What POTUS Trump is doing is not only Constitutional, but it is smart. Otherwise even if this caravan is turned back, and even if a wall is build along the border, there will still be ways for illegals to keep on coming and use such loopholes for their advantage, and that of their children.


edit on 31-10-2018 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You should probably look into Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), Almeida-Sanchez v. United States (1973), Wong Win v. United States (1896) and Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886).



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: poncho1982

What many in here are not stating is that the 14th was written in specific for the freed slaves and their children to be citizens... It was never written for illegal immigrants to use the 14th amendment as a loophole.



edit on 31-10-2018 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

Yeah, and we should look at how Liberal judges have been ruling these days as well such as the case of the Muslim immigrants who were teaching their children to shoot to murder kids in school...

We should also look at other "Liberal/Democrat" Judges who have been releasing criminals...



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: links234

BTW, I am certain the case of the Chinese from 1886 is a case of a Chinese who was used for slave labor in the U.S. Many of the Chinese brought from the 1800s were also used as slaves against their will. I am also almost 100% certain the case from 1973 was an exception, such as for example illegals used for human trafficking/sex slaves. There are laws that help in such exceptions and give legal status to trafficked persons in the U.S.


edit on 31-10-2018 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Wayfarer

No no no, unless a Liberal hippy changes the interpretation of our Constitution, only then should it be enforced. Otherwise it is just a piece of paper that Liberals love to wipe their bottoms with.

Could you tell us again why was the 14th amendment added to the Constitution?...



posted on Oct, 31 2018 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Wayfarer

No no no, unless a Liberal hippy changes the interpretation of our Constitution, only then should it be enforced. Otherwise it is just a piece of paper that Liberals love to wipe their bottoms with.

Could you tell us again why was the 14th amendment added to the Constitution?...


A few reasons. Slaves, native Americans, lack of young men since they were mostly all dead, and it follows the philosophy of natural law the founders used from empiricism philosophy.

Oddly enough the originalist philosophy would say you read it as is.
edit on 31-10-2018 by luthier because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
20
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join