1 hour ago, Sujo said:

And yet trump wants greenland.

there is nothing wrong with offering to buy something.  the other party can simply refuse to sell.  compare that to what china is trying to do in the south china sea.  TAKE, TAKE, TAKE.  

 

which scenario do you prefer?

8 hours ago, Credo said:

The only narrative being fed is the one in your imagination.   Anyone entering a country who is not a diplomat, is subject to the laws of the country they enter, not the one they left.   
 

Whether you enter legally and overstay, whether you are here illegally or legally, you are subject only to the laws of the US.   

 

consider the following scenario...

 

you have a baby that was born to 2 illegals.  you place the baby on the side of the border of the usa.  and you place the 2 illegals on the opposite side of the border.  if the parents call out to the baby, and the baby walks to the 2 illegal parents.  do you think the usa government is going to stop the baby from rejoining it's parents?

 

subject to the jurisdiction of whom?  obviously to the country that the 2 illegals have allegiance to.

24 minutes ago, DEKEM said:

consider the following scenario...

 

you have a baby that was born to 2 illegals.  you place the baby on the side of the border of the usa.  and you place the 2 illegals on the opposite side of the border.  if the parents call out to the baby, and the baby walks to the 2 illegal parents.  do you think the usa government is going to stop the baby from rejoining it's parents?

 

subject to the jurisdiction of whom?  obviously to the country that the 2 illegals have allegiance to.

It's difficult to fathom of a more silly scenario than the one you just gave.   Prior to Trump, children have been kept with their parents, unless they were found to be unfit.   Parents have custody of a child.  

 

There are many, many court cases involving US citizen children who are a foreign country and they fall under the jurisdiction of the country in which they are in.    As the custodial parents in your scenario are across the border, the child will be allowed to join them.   The point is, the child can remain in the US, but the parents cannot.   Having a US citizen child doesn't extend to you the right to either come to the US or to remain here.  

 

You might want to refresh your memory with regard to the Cuban boy in the US without a parent.   His name was Elian Gonzalez.   Parents rights are paramount and have nothing directly to do with citizenship.   

6 minutes ago, Credo said:

It's difficult to fathom of a more silly scenario than the one you just gave.   Prior to Trump, children have been kept with their parents, unless they were found to be unfit.   Parents have custody of a child.  

 

There are many, many court cases involving US citizen children who are a foreign country and they fall under the jurisdiction of the country in which they are in.    As the custodial parents in your scenario are across the border, the child will be allowed to join them.   The point is, the child can remain in the US, but the parents cannot.   Having a US citizen child doesn't extend to you the right to either come to the US or to remain here.  

 

You might want to refresh your memory with regard to the Cuban boy in the US without a parent.   His name was Elian Gonzalez.   Parents rights are paramount and have nothing directly to do with citizenship.   

the point of my post was to show that the parents have jurisdiction to their baby, bro. and not the usa.  get it?  "subject to the jurisdiction"  hence, the baby was not quote, "subject to the jurisdiction" of the usa.

4 minutes ago, DEKEM said:

the point of my post was to show that the parents have jurisdiction to their baby, bro. and not the usa.  get it?  "subject to the jurisdiction"  hence, the baby was not quote, "subject to the jurisdiction" of the usa.

Sadly for this rather novel theory, the term "jurisdiction" refers to (1) the official power to make legal decisions and judgments, and (2) a system of law courts; a judicature. Therefore parents have no jurisdiction over their baby, they merely have custody

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

 

169 U.S. 649

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (No. 18)

Argued: March 5, 8, 1897

Decided: March 28, 1898

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

 

 

 

Article Five of the United States Constitution

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

 

 

16 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

Sadly for this rather novel theory, the term "jurisdiction" refers to (1) the official power to make legal decisions and judgments, and (2) a system of law courts; a judicature. Therefore parents have no jurisdiction over their baby, they merely have custody

sounds like a twist of words.  like for instance..  undocumented immigrant as opposed to illegal alien.

 

of course, the parents have jurisdiction over their baby.  if the authorities took the baby, it could be interpreted as kidnapping.  unlawful abduction.

 

let's look at it another way...  let's say your baby was born in some country in the EU and you are not a citizen of that country.  what happens?  for sure, your baby would not be entitled to birthright citizenship.  right?

 

most of the countries outside the americas meaning north, central and south america follow jus sanguinis which means that one of the parents must be a citizen before citizenship is given to a newborn baby.

 

there is a reason why jus sanguinis is the perferred method around the world.  out of 193 countries, only 33 allow birthright citizenship aka jus soli.

 

consider this scenario...  your country has a population of say 5 million.  if your country allowed open borders and birthright citizenship, a big country like china or india could easily take over your country by sending over 5 million couples from their 1.5+ BILLION population.  give birth to babies that within 1 or 2 generations vote out the natives.  does that make sense?

8 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

 

169 U.S. 649

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (No. 18)

Argued: March 5, 8, 1897

Decided: March 28, 1898

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

 

 

 

Article Five of the United States Constitution

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

 

 

times change and scenarios change.  that is why the usa constitution is a dynamic document meaning changes can be implemented if necessary.  bottomline, the usa constitution was enacted to benefit and protect the people of the united states.  if it does not do so because of some change whatsoever, the authors of the constitution anticipated these events by allowing amendments.

 

here we are confronted with the INVASION of MILLIONS of illegals into the usa EVERY YEAR.  what more of a reason do we need to amend the constitution?

 

president trump would be doing the right thing to stop birthright citizenship.  get it done.

8 hours ago, Credo said:

The court has already ruled on the issue in the past and it has agreed born here you are a US citizen.   It has also upheld born in US waters, you're a citizen, born in US airspace, you are a US citizen.   

 

The Court has only touched upon the issue once, where it ruled that the children of legal permanent residents were entitled to citizenship via their birth, and even that was a heavily contested 5-4 decision. It has never addressed the question of children of illegals or tourists and the composition of the Court is obviously entirely different today than it was in the late 19th Century. The historical resources and research materials available are also vastly superior today. 

Off-topic post and reply removed.  

 

30 minutes ago, DEKEM said:

times change and scenarios change.  that is why the usa constitution is a dynamic document meaning changes can be implemented if necessary.

 

Of course they do.

 

“Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.”

 

― Martin Luther King Jr.

 

 

Bottom line, adhere to precedent, or change it through the courts.

 

Bottom line, propose a new ammendment, through Congress and the States.

 

 

Or just blow out a tweet or three.

 

Ah, "The Age of trump".

 

 

I do respect those here who remain on the trump train - chooh, chooh, excluding the russian trolls of course. It takes a lot of chutzpah to come up with arguments supporting trump's tweets, more so when he changes his mind the next day, or forgets what he tweeted, or says he was just joking. Then y'all are left with egg-encrusted noggins.

 

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, usviphotography said:

even that was a heavily contested 5-4 decision.

 

You do realize that the size of the win matters little? Or that 5 is greater than 4?

 

 

26 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

You do realize that the size of the win matters little? Or that 5 is greater than 4?

 

 

tell that to the liberals.

8 minutes ago, DEKEM said:

tell that to the liberals.

 

 

Can you translate this phrase in "Deflection", a foreign language, to English?

 

We "swallowed" Bush v. Gore.

 

 

46 minutes ago, mtls2005 said:

 

You do realize that the size of the win matters little? Or that 5 is greater than 4?

 

 

Actually, when it comes to the Supreme Court, it matters greatly. This is why Justice Kennedy's retirement caused such a commotion and why liberals are so obsessed with Justice Ginsburg's health. A 5-4 decision is just one retirement or death away from being overturned. More generally however, it reflects a thorny legal issue on which there is tremendous disagreement. 120 years ago the Court was split over the relatively narrow question of the citizenship of children of legal permanent residents. So to suggest that the far more contentious issue of "birth tourism" or "anchor babies" is settled law that would be an easy win for the Left is simply wrong. 

 

As it stands today, I'd predict the Left would again secure a 5-4 victory thanks to Justice Ginsburg. But the odds of her still being on the Court by the time this case would be heard go down with every passing month. 

3 hours ago, DEKEM said:

consider the following scenario...

 

you have a baby that was born to 2 illegals.  you place the baby on the side of the border of the usa.  and you place the 2 illegals on the opposite side of the border.  if the parents call out to the baby, and the baby walks to the 2 illegal parents.  do you think the usa government is going to stop the baby from rejoining it's parents?

 

subject to the jurisdiction of whom?  obviously to the country that the 2 illegals have allegiance to.

wow, whatever you are taking I want some...

 

Troll post removed.  

 

On 8/21/2019 at 7:32 PM, Old Croc said:

Not often I agree with anything that man has to say, but I believe the automatic right to citizenship because a baby was born inside the border has little relevance in this day of mass travel and border hopping.

 

Australia changed it's citizenship act about 1986 to state babies born there get the same status as their parents. If both parents are illegal, baby is too. If just one parent has PR, baby is a citizen.

This came about because increasing numbers of pregnant woman, from many countries, were flying in to give birth to an Australian. Hong Kong residents were forefront in the scheme at the time because many saw this as a backup in case the return to China went bad.(!) 

a lopt tougher ammending a constitution with 50 indidual states involved in a republic foprm of government

 

19 hours ago, DEKEM said:

times change and scenarios change.  that is why the usa constitution is a dynamic document meaning changes can be implemented if necessary.  bottomline, the usa constitution was enacted to benefit and protect the people of the united states.  if it does not do so because of some change whatsoever, the authors of the constitution anticipated these events by allowing amendments.

 

here we are confronted with the INVASION of MILLIONS of illegals into the usa EVERY YEAR.  what more of a reason do we need to amend the constitution?

 

president trump would be doing the right thing to stop birthright citizenship.  get it done.

what makes you think the amendment would succeed?

 

On 8/28/2019 at 10:17 AM, DEKEM said:

if you research birthright citizenship on the internet, you would know that most of the countries in the world do not do this.  birthright citizenship is called jus soli.  look it up.  most countries in the world grant citizenship where at least one of the parents is already a citizen.  this is called jus sanguinis.

 

the only countries that follow jus soli are in the americas.

 

as recent as if I recall right 2005, ireland voted to discontinue jus soli.  and follow jus sanguinis.  other countries have followed suite.  frankly, with all the issues we are dealing with people abusing jus soli in the usa, I think it is only logical to go with jus sanguinis myself.

 

it is the ROOT of the problem with illegal immigration.  if you want to resolve a problem, you deal with the ROOT of the problem.  jus soli.

 

somebody said we cannot change it because it is in the us constitution.  fact is, the us constitution is a dynamic documentation purposely made that way by the creators to allow for changes if necessary.  changes are called amendments.

 

please president trump.  get rid of jus soli.  if you can do it with an executive order, do so.

he cant

 

3 hours ago, AYJAYDEE said:

a lopt tougher ammending a constitution with 50 indidual states involved in a republic foprm of government

 

Three-fourths anyway.

 

While the 13th Ammendment, the passage of which was recently made famous in Spielberg's film, "Lincoln", was ratified by 3/4ths (27 of 36) quickly. Mississippi held out for 148 years, only ratifying it in 2013. Go Rebs.

 

trump has serious dictator envy, and a disdain for co-equal branches of government, but he is not so stupid to try an Executive Order on this one, so hard-liners should stop salivating and put down your Immigration porn.