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 Ready to Stop the Anchor Baby Loophole

page: 18
47
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2019 @ 09:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
As far as that is concerned, "dog" could be construed to include cats. One can "construe" anything if one wants it bad enough, just as you are doing with the word "jurisdiction."


Except the authors of the Amendment made it clear what they meant at that time by their various writings.

To me, it is clear the 14th Amendment does not grant birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens.


Then why has no one challenged it?

Agreed, but I don't see what is capricious about what I posted. Citizenship comes with obligations. Dual citizenship comes with dual obligations.


My point is how can I have two jurisdictions and still be a valid citizen of the United States using your argument?




posted on Sep, 3 2019 @ 09:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
As has already been explained at length, equal protection applies to all people, not just all citizens. Part of the equal protection includes public education as defined by the court because it is nigh impossible to determine who is and is not a citizen for that purpose. Birthright citizenship applies to all people born on US soil and under US jurisdiction... a different standard.


That still doesn't explain why no one over 100+ years has not challenged it based on your view.



posted on Sep, 3 2019 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl


Please stop. The government has no 'income' - it is merely the recipient of large scale legalized theft racket, just like all governments.

Income is any monies received. Governments receive tax revenue. That is income.

If you want to debate the morality of taxes, that is a different argument.


I am against legalized theft wherein money is taken at gunpoint from one person - you, me, anyone - and given to someone else - but only after the thieves keep 90+% for themselves.

As am I. That is the abuse I spoke of.


Which means you are against all of it, because it is all mismanaged, and in fact, I posit that it can be no other way.

Which was my next statement. I do disagree with your posit, at least in theory.


Prove it.

No need to. If I am using a service that someone believes should not be used, it is up to that someone to prove I used it, not me to prove a negative.


Both are wrong. Our system is broken, but taxing something (in this case gas) that is directly involved in the use of something else that must be maintained (roads) is more along the lines of a use tax, which I am not against, because it is voluntary. Use it, pay the tax. If you don't want to pay the tax, don't use it (or find a way around it, like avoiding toll roads).

In that respect, all taxation is voluntary. Don't want to pay income tax? Don't make income. Don't want to pay land tax? Don't own land. Don't want to pay gas tax? Don't drive. Don't want to pay excise tax? Don't buy.


Yes... it is. Because it is based on the use of force.

Try not paying for your license plate and still driving; see how little force is used. I understand in some states (not Alabama) one is expected to pay for a license plate even if the vehicle is not used on public roads.


Before government got involved in charity, the poor were taken care of by voluntary charities (mostly local churches, but others too), and while not perfect, they did a much better job of it than the government (much lower overhead for one thing).

Agreed! Private charities did a much better job in almost all cases!

The problem is that private charities could be exclusive. A church could refuse charity to those not a church member, even though they were in dire need. That cannot be changed without government becoming in direct control of all charities, which would be a terrible move IMO. So the government became involved in charity work as well.

It was indeed a power grab, but the result has not been completely bad, just mostly. Some good has come of it. Let me ask you: I am now unable to work, due to heart/circulatory problems. I simply cannot maintain any sort of physical activity for long, to the point that even a full time desk job would be physically impossible. I have applied for disability. Do you wish I would just die and stay off the public dole?

That is what I am hearing in your posts. I hope I am reading you wrong.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 3 2019 @ 02:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
Income is any monies received. Governments receive tax revenue. That is income.

No... it isn't. It is revenue. It is not income as defined by the IRC.


If you want to debate the morality of taxes, that is a different argument.

It is the only argument.


"I am against legalized theft wherein money is taken at gunpoint from one person - you, me, anyone - and given to someone else - but only after the thieves keep 90+% for themselves."

As am I.

No, by your own words, you are fine with tax revenues being used for charity (welfare).

The above words of mine describes precisely that.


That is the abuse I spoke of.

No, you used the word 'mis-managed'. That has nothing to do with taking from one, at gunpoint, and giving it to someone else (minus a 90+% 'finders fee').


"Prove it."

No need to. If I am using a service that someone believes should not be used, it is up to that someone to prove I used it, not me to prove a negative.

I didn't ask you to prove a negative. I asked you to prove that some of your tax money goes to pay for Georgia roads.


In that respect, all taxation is voluntary. Don't want to pay income tax? Don't make income. Don't want to pay land tax? Don't own land. Don't want to pay gas tax? Don't drive. Don't want to pay excise tax? Don't buy.

What you are missing is that those examples are far from 'equal'.

I don't have to own property to live. I don't have to use a vehicle with an internal combustion engine to get from point A to point B.

I do have to work to earn a living, and I do have to buy food to support my life.

I could argue about all of these, but the fact is, they are very different from government revenue going into the general treasury being used for welfare.

If you can't see that, we're done...


Try not paying for your license plate and still driving; see how little force is used. I understand in some states (not Alabama) one is expected to pay for a license plate even if the vehicle is not used on public roads.

-sigh- you are really stretching here to keep from admitting the obvious...


Agreed! Private charities did a much better job in almost all cases!

Which is far, far better than the governments track record, and all without stealing anything from anyone.


The problem is that private charities could be exclusive. A church could refuse charity to those not a church member, even though they were in dire need.

So, you use fear-mongering to justify replacing a system that works, in your own words, "much better in almost all cases", with a system that is much worse, but more importantly, requires legalized theft on a scale difficult to even imagine.

Some charities could be exclusive. Does that mean all of them will be? Of course not - but this is also just reality, and the way it is.


That cannot be changed without government becoming in direct control of all charities, which would be a terrible move IMO.

Agreed, but more importantly, it would be extremely UnConstutitional...


So the government became involved in charity work as well.

Again, that is not the why, the why was purely a power grab.

That said, all laws providing for welfare are blatantly UnConstitutional, but this is moot since the question will never even see an actual court hearing, much less make it to the supreme Court.


It was indeed a power grab, but the result has not been completely bad, just mostly.

It has been 100% completely bad, because it steals vast sums of money from private Citizens, is extremely inefficient (90+% goes to pay unelected government beurorats), but most importantly, perpetuates and grows the problem it is claimed to be trying to solve - just like all government programs.


Some good has come of it. Let me ask you: I am now unable to work, due to heart/circulatory problems. I simply cannot maintain any sort of physical activity for long, to the point that even a full time desk job would be physically impossible. I have applied for disability. Do you wish I would just die and stay off the public dole?

Did you buy disability insurance? It is available you know.

So, you'll have to read what I write below with comprehension and discernment to understand that, no, I am absolutely not 'wishing you would just die'.

What I am saying is, your failure to buy appropriate insurance, and/or finding yourself in a situation where you are having trouble making ends meet, is absolutely not a valid claim on my or anyone else's life, or any part of it, period.

If your life circumstances and your failure to plan ahead accordingly require you to eek out a living on a part time job because that is all you can do, then so be it. If you cannot work at all, and have no family, friends that are able to help you, and no charities are willing to help you...

Well, lets just say, we are all going to die someday.

I simply do not recognize your exigent 'need' as a valid claim on my, or anyone else's life. Period.



posted on Sep, 3 2019 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: tanstaafl


No... it isn't. It is revenue. It is not income as defined by the IRC.

OK, so we're going to play the semantics game. Very well... whatever you want to call it, the government does not produce or sell anything. All of the money the government gets comes from some type of taxation.

As for the rest of your post, I get it: you don't give a rat's rear about anyone else. That's fine. Just come out and say it. It's your right to feel that way.

I, however, do give a crap. I'm against the liberal craziness that is being pushed forward (Bernie, I'm talking to you), but I am also against letting people starve in a country of plenty. On that, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The only reason, though, that these liberals get away with pushing this craziness is that people like you scare others into thinking if they don't go with the latest socialist program du jour, they'll lose everything. Right now, there are people going hungry because they don't have money to buy food. Right now, there are parents who are skipping their medicine because their kids need theirs and there's not enough money. Right now, there are people sleeping under bridges in the weather, fully exposed to the elements, who are there through no fault of their own.

There but for the grace of God go I... and you, whether you want to admit it or not.

There's a happy medium to any solution. This thread is about birthright citizenship for illegal aliens... does that mean that since I am against it, I want to stop all immigration? No! I am all for immigration, as long as it is legal, and I support birthright citizenship for parents of legal aliens. Similarly, just because I see all the flaws in our present welfare system, it does not mean I am against welfare... it means I am against inefficient, ineffective welfare, which is what we have now. I am fine with my taxes going to help someone who is down on their luck, as long as they receive a hand up and not a hand out. I am good with a social safety net... just not a social safety hammock.

I hope you never need help. Some people are just lucky... they get to work their lives for good pay, build a nice hefty retirement, and retire in comfort. I hope you are one of them. That way you'll never have to eat your words. I imagine they will taste pretty bitter.

I will respond to this:

I asked you to prove that some of your tax money goes to pay for Georgia roads.

It's called "matching funds" and is a matter of public record.

TheRedneck



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 07:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: TheRedneck
As has already been explained at length, equal protection applies to all people, not just all citizens. Part of the equal protection includes public education as defined by the court because it is nigh impossible to determine who is and is not a citizen for that purpose. Birthright citizenship applies to all people born on US soil and under US jurisdiction... a different standard.


That still doesn't explain why no one over 100+ years has not challenged it based on your view.

Nothing needs to be explained. It is being challenged now. It should go to the SC for a ruling. Both arguments have merit, it needs to be decided.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Nothing needs to be explained. It is being challenged now. It should go to the SC for a ruling. Both arguments have merit, it needs to be decided.


Please provide the case in question.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Nothing needs to be explained. It is being challenged now. It should go to the SC for a ruling. Both arguments have merit, it needs to be decided.


Please provide the case in question.

I have no idea what you are talking about. There is no case. If we had a case and the SC had ruled we would not be having this discussion.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You said it's being 'challenged', the discussion is about the Constitutionality of birthright, and 'challenged' in this context means a case disputing this fact. Any other 'challenge' is irrelevant.



posted on Sep, 4 2019 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yes, in the context of the thread Trump is considering a course of action that will result in a court challenge. No matter what side of the aisle you are on you should want a SC ruling on the matter so it is settled rather than ambiguous.



posted on Sep, 6 2019 @ 12:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
Yes, in the context of the thread Trump is considering a course of action that will result in a court challenge.


Him 'considering' isn't a challenge, him doing would be one. As it is the status quo remains.



posted on Sep, 7 2019 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: tanstaafl


Incidentally, I don't get to Georgia that much, so I don't use their roads a lot... but some of my Federal tax money is used to maintain them. In some circles, that is called "charity." I prefer the term "socialist." "Socialist" is not always a bad thing. It is just something that must not be used as the basis for an economy. Overused and abused, it leads to situations like Venezuela is experiencing.

You're welcome for the roads. And thank you for the Alabama roads.

TheRedneck


That is true, but you may buy products that were carried by truck over those roads.

And it is possible that some people in Georgia purchased goods from your state that were shipped by truck over your states' roads also.



originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: TheRedneck
We also pay taxes to support welfare recipients. Everything the government does is paid for by taxes; the government has no other form of income.

Please stop. The government has no 'income' - it is merely the recipient of large scale legalized theft racket, just like all governments.

To use the word income, which is what is used to denote the pay received by someone in exchange for a hard days work - is an insult to all people who work for a living.



Income gained by extortion is still "income". The word doesn't have as narrow a definition as you are giving it.





It sounds like you are against any social services that support the poor.

Amazing... when ignorance improperly frames the question, ignorance is usually the resulting answer.

Allow me to reframe the question into a statement.

I am against legalized theft wherein money is taken at gunpoint from one person - you, me, anyone - and given to someone else - but only after the thieves keep 90+% for themselves.


The whole goal of government is to choose one entity and give it a monopoly on the very things we need it to protect us against.

It's kind of like taking penicillin. Penicillin operates by out competing all the bacteria around it, making itself the only parasite, and then being a fairly benign parasite.

Government's job is to choke out the other would-be extortionists.

It is the only entity allowed to deprive you of life or liberty, or to simply demand money from you without offering you any choice in the matter.

In return, it is supposed to prevent anyone else from doing it.

But yeah.... sometimes we let it carry out other tasks whenever the free market seems to be having a hard time finding a way. Building roads, for example, when most private enterprises would prefer to wait for someone else to build them, or would exclude the public from driving on them.... etc....


There might be a better way to do those things. Who knows?

Maybe someday someone will come up with a new kind of entity that can handle public works projects, but be separate from the main body of the government. Not allowed to tax, and able to get its money from some other source.

The Federal Reserve is kind of separate from the government. It gets its money kind of by printing it, and kind of by offering financial services to its member banks.

I could foresee someday a commerce system being set up that gets its revenue by owning mineral rights, and allowing private industry to extract those minerals for a fee. Then using the money to handle infrastructure, and perhaps other tasks related to commerce. The Saudi government gets its revenue from the oil wells, if I am not mistaken.
edit on 7-9-2019 by bloodymarvelous because: .... tantalizing possibility to replace government with something else, for certain tasks.



new topics

top topics



 
47
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join