Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities??? : Well the problem is I can't get on board with you until the visa system is made easier. And I can never agree with number 2. Anyone born on US soil has always had the right of citizenship. I don't want to go down the road of having sizeable communities of people who were born here but aren't citizens.
    Posted by JaySev2010

    Not true. As a matter of fact "anchor babies" is a new phenomena! It was decided many times by the SCOTUS that a baby born in the US to a non-citizen is NOT a citizen of the US. They are a citizen of the country the parents are citizens of.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities??? : Actually the in laws aren't so bad. And the funny thing is, they really don't want to come here to stay that long. The culture shock is just too much for them. But I laid down the law on overstaying visas. I don't want anyone getting into any trouble so my wife understands people who come and visit have to go back when their visa is up.
    Posted by JaySev2010

    The issue is your view makes up about 10% of those with family in other countries. It is easier to go visit other countries because no one really wants to stay there. We don't have that same luck. People come here for a visit and stay to retirement.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tiresias. Show tiresias's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities??? : Not true. As a matter of fact "anchor babies" is a new phenomena! It was decided many times by the SCOTUS that a baby born in the US to a non-citizen is NOT a citizen of the US. They are a citizen of the country the parents are citizens of.
    Posted by brat13


    Wow, that's impressive: "The policy originates with the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, which says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

    A new phenomena?  Only dating back to the Constitution, jackazz.  Where do you get your talking points?
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from hawkeye01. Show hawkeye01's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities??? : Wow, that's impressive: "The policy originates with the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, which says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." A new phenomena?  Only dating back to the Constitution, jackazz.  Where do you get your talking points?
    Posted by tiresias


    He's referring to it being a new phenomena in that it's a fairly new thing that illegals are doing to take advantage of. The details of our constitution isn't something that every person in every other country is keenly aware of. Just because we know it doesn't mean the rest of the world does.
    Once it was discovered that this works it's become increasingly popular. Hence what the post meant by "new" phenomena.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities??? : Wow, that's impressive: "The policy originates with the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, which says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." A new phenomena?  Only dating back to the Constitution, jackazz.  Where do you get your talking points?
    Posted by tiresias

    Hmmm.... The Constitution was written in 1787 and ratified in 1789. Civil War 1861-1865. 14th Amendment Ratified 1868. Where did you learn your history?

    BTW - Since school is in session, here is what the author of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause said on the subject...
    "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities??? : Wow, that's impressive: "The policy originates with the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, which says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." A new phenomena?  Only dating back to the Constitution, jackazz.  Where do you get your talking points?
    Posted by tiresias

    BTW - I don't get "talking points"! I read and learn on my own. You should try sometime! Then you wouldn't seem so uneducated when attacking someone's post that is 100% factual! Who's BAD talking points are you listening to?
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from whatnow3. Show whatnow3's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    Does everyone know on this board that the AZ law specifically states that a license is proof of citizenship?

    If a police officer asks to see your license, and you provide one, you are immediately determined to be a citizen, no matter how little English you speak or how brown your skin is. 

    That seems to be a point that many lefty's playing the racism card ignore. 
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    Does everyone know on this board that the AZ law specifically states that a license is proof of citizenship? If a police officer asks to see your license, and you provide one, you are immediately determined to be a citizen, no matter how little English you speak or how brown your skin is.  That seems to be a point that many lefty's playing the racism card ignore. 
    Posted by whatnow3

    That is an inconvenient truth!
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from CHEisCHE. Show CHEisCHE's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    Does everyone know on this board that the AZ law specifically states that a license is proof of citizenship? If a police officer asks to see your license, and you provide one, you are immediately determined to be a citizen, no matter how little English you speak or how brown your skin is.  That seems to be a point that many lefty's playing the racism card ignore. 
    Posted by whatnow3


    Nope! you assumed we don't know how to fake the driving license or the SS card huh?
    Police still needs to verify that Che is "legal" comprende?

    Che still need to sit in the cruiser or be fingered at the station....that means harrassment and profiling.
    bwaaaaaaaaaaa!
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    The issue is that you don't have to carry your license wherever you go and you generally don't have to show it to a police officer. -------------------------- Thats silly.  If you're here illegally, you don't have a license.  If your from another country legally, you DO have to carry documentation.
    Posted by GreginMeffa


    If you are a citizen you don't have to carry identification.  That is the point.  Regular folks can be caught up in the net of the illegal trespasser crime investigation and held until they prove that they are innocent.  That is a problem.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    Reuben- Here is the issue with yoru argument, STATES DO ENFORCE OUR IMMIGRATION LAWS. They have been for a long time.  Some where trained by ICE to assist them.  Under Bush, many states trained staties to enforce our laws.  The argument is bogus. 
    Posted by whatnow3


    You are not paying attention.  Those police are trained and supervised by ICE, a federal authority.  They do not act on their own.  They turn over suspected illegals to the Federal authorities for charges and/or deportation.  They have not incarcerated people for being illegals based on state law or endeavored to deport them.  "Bogus" is your lack of comprehension of these basic facts.  The Feds are in charge of immigration matters and this law wrongly tries to change that power.
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities??? : Hmmm.... The Constitution was written in 1787 and ratified in 1789. Civil War 1861-1865. 14th Amendment Ratified 1868. Where did you learn your history? BTW - Since school is in session, here is what the author of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause said on the subject... "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
    Posted by brat13


    It is not so simple.  In the case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).  A child born in the country of legal immigrants was recognized as a citizen under the 14th Amendment.  There is no case law to date that says that a child born of illegal immigrants is not also a citizen.   That is due to the fact that the Federal government recognizes that to be the status conveyed as a birth right so there is no reason to go to court.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from whatnow3. Show whatnow3's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    Reuben- you ignore facts.  The AZ ploice will be handing the illegals over to ICE.  They are not going to start deporting.  And they asked for training from the Feds and Obama refused.

    And if you are a citizen, you can prove it without any ID.  A social, proof of residency etc.

    A police officer is trained to figure that stuff out.

    And if you are not a citizen, you should be carrying your docs, IT IS THE LAW.

    And if you are citizen, and are driving when you are pulled over you have to have a license. 

    And I have been asked to show ID when I have not been driving.  You know what I did, I gave the cop my ID.  I had nothing to hide.  I am sure if it was you, you would take a stand and cause problems.  But the vast majority like to cooperate with cops because they are the good guys in most cases. 

    You are talking about a very small majority of citizens who walk around without ID.  Is asking for an ID to get liquor a violation of our laws?

    You can't get it without showing ID.


    Give it up.  Your arguments are just not valid, let alone your soap box rants about bad cops. 
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from PS911fan. Show PS911fan's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    Reuben- you ignore facts.  The AZ ploice will be handing the illegals over to ICE.  They are not going to start deporting.  And they asked for training from the Feds and Obama refused. And if you are a citizen, you can prove it without any ID.  A social, proof of residency etc. A police officer is trained to figure that stuff out. And if you are not a citizen, you should be carrying your docs, IT IS THE LAW. And if you are citizen, and are driving when you are pulled over you have to have a license.  And I have been asked to show ID when I have not been driving.  You know what I did, I gave the cop my ID.  I had nothing to hide.  I am sure if it was you, you would take a stand and cause problems.  But the vast majority like to cooperate with cops because they are the good guys in most cases.  You are talking about a very small majority of citizens who walk around without ID.  Is asking for an ID to get liquor a violation of our laws? You can't get it without showing ID. Give it up.  Your arguments are just not valid, let alone your soap box rants about bad cops. 
    Posted by whatnow3



    Racist sheriff is speaking on video how he will not hand "brown people" to ice....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1crnpTtj4vo&feature=related - go in about 1:58 to 2:08 if the video

    This video shows as well the nasty racist sentiment as well....but Joe ain't planning to follow the law
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities??? : It is not so simple.  In the case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).  A child born in the country of legal immigrants was recognized as a citizen under the 14th Amendment.  There is no case law to date that says that a child born of illegal immigrants is not also a citizen.   That is due to the fact that the Federal government recognizes that to be the status conveyed as a birth right so there is no reason to go to court.
    Posted by Reubenhop

    Correct and it has been stretched to include illegal immigrants over the years. The issue is there was really no definition of illegal immigrant at that time. Mr. Ark's parents had a legal domicile in California. SCOTUS ruled that in law a domicile is a permanent residency in a particular jurisdiction and the Ark's were legal immigrants and their children were therefore legal. Illegal immigrants can't have domiciles in the US since they are trespassing.
    SCOTUS was wrong and it was proven when the Ark's returned to their native China. They never intended to have a permanent residency in the US.
    The funny thing is prior to the ARK case, SCOTUS ruled birthplace was not sufficient for right to citizenship. The majority threw away case law in the Ark case and changed the definition. Since then, SCOTUS refuses to acknowledge the wrong decision and hides behind their case law BS.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities??? : If you are a citizen you don't have to carry identification.  That is the point.  Regular folks can be caught up in the net of the illegal trespasser crime investigation and held until they prove that they are innocent.  That is a problem.
    Posted by Reubenhop

    Reuben, that happens today in Massachusetts! Police have every right to stop a US Citizen and hold them until certain facts are established to exonerate that citizen. If you are walking in an area where a bank was robbed and you fit the description of the robber you WILL be stopped and held. Asked for ID and required to produce it. 100% legal!
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from whatnow3. Show whatnow3's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    brat13- I have learned that Reuben believes what he believes and facts about the law won't persuade him.  Odd considering he is a lwayer.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from tiresias. Show tiresias's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    "Not true. As a matter of fact "anchor babies" is a new phenomena! It was decided many times by the SCOTUS that a baby born in the US to a non-citizen is NOT a citizen of the US. They are a citizen of the country the parents are citizens of."

    Okay jackazz, you try and assert that the babies born in the US thing is a new phenomena, and you say the SCOTUS established precedent on that.  I cite the 14th amendment, part of the Constitution, although yes, it was added after the Civil War, which still makes it more than 100 years old.  Incidentally in my citation I noted that the 14th amendment was added after the Civil War, and I should have distinguished between the original date of the ratification vs. the addition of the 14th.

    And the author also didn't want American Indians to be citizens, and the Supreme Court has established precedent for babies born in the US to be citizens.

    "In Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a man born within the United States to foreigners (in that case, Chinese citizens) who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States[10] and who were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power, was a citizen of the United States.

    Under these two rulings, the following persons born in the United States are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and thus do not qualify for automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment:

    • Children born to foreign diplomats
    • Children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States

    All other persons born in the United States were citizens."



    Are we seriously arguing whether babies born in the US are citizens?  You might not like it, but that's the law.  I was just stunned by your ignorance in the first post I responded to.  Don't give me that history argument.  I do a google and there's my answer to history questions.  I'm not a walking encyclopedia of US history.  I'm good on the late 20th century, post WW2.  Let's not get into Glenn Beck lecturing us on his version of US history with his chalkboard and OLIGARHY spelling.

    I'm pragmatic about the immigration issue.  I think it's overblown.  I think it's powered by a lot of racism.  I feel like there is plenty of room in this country for immigrants who want to be good citizens.  We're a nation of immigrants, and it's pretty wack to shut the door once you decided foreigners need not apply.  Just accept that we're going to be overrun by Asians and Hispanics and deal with it.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from taxmeintooblivion. Show taxmeintooblivion's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    brat13- I have learned that Reuben believes what he believes and facts about the law won't persuade him.  Odd considering he is a lwayer.
    Posted by whatnow3


    ding ding ding
    www.photopumpkin.com/wp-content/uploads/funny-obama-12.jpg" alt="" />
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhatIsItNow. Show WhatIsItNow's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    brat13- I have learned that Reuben believes what he believes and facts about the law won't persuade him.  Odd considering he is a lwayer.
    Posted by whatnow3


    Reuben cited the law.  Brat said he thinks the law is "wrong."  Pathetic try....
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from tiresias. Show tiresias's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    I know, I hadn't caught that before I posted.  In this case brat should be sticking to GOP talking points, because his argument is now:  the SCOTUS was wrong in 1898 and has been wrong since then.  Here's a random link reinterpreting the 14th Amendment, http://www.14thamendment.us/.  That website argues that anchor babies is a recent thing and against the intentions of the authors.

    "The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship."

    Sounds a lot like the argument that Obama can't be a US citizen because he had  British citizenship through his father.  You're not a birther, are you brat13?  Don't make me do some research to find out whether you questioned Obama's citizenship.  Then I go and find

    "Republicans in the border state of Arizona have indicated an intention to introduce state legislation which would seek to deny U.S. citizenship to Arizona-born children of illegal immigrant parents by prohibiting the issuance of a birth certificate unless at least one parent has legal status."  Okay, next these wackos will be going 10th amendment / tenthers.

    Before I go too deep into the craziness, the 14th amendment is clear.  The SCOTUS ruling in Wong Kim Arc settled the issue and went on to say that "the 14th amendment has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship."  Legislation has recently been proposed to challenge the birthright citizenship of children born to illegal aliens.  I guess you could say it's a recent phenomena that people have wanted to change US law regarding US citizenship.  This is me laughing at you thinking that it's only recently that babies born to illegal aliens in the US have become citizens by jus soli and "
    It was decided many times by the SCOTUS that a baby born in the US to a non-citizen is NOT a citizen of the US. They are a citizen of the country the parents are citizens of"

    You can cite those SCOTUS decisions anytime now.  When you successfully argue before the Supreme Court that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to the children of illegal aliens, then we can have this discussion.  In the meantime it's just you thinking the SCOTUS was wrong and wishing that the situation didn't exist.



    As a sidenote I wasted at least an hour of my life looking up this crazy revisionist nonsense about the 14th Amendment.  You could sway me if you allowed that by new phenomena you meant not less than 135 years ago, but a bit of a stretch I think.  Btw you were joking about the implanting of GPS chips, right?
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from tiresias. Show tiresias's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    WhatIsItNow's post was succinct and sufficient.  I guess I can't help myself but to refute / debunk / mock / belittle /  be logical way more than is actually needed.

    Is it a fact that the SCOTUS has decided many times that a baby born in the US to a non-citizen is not a US citizen?

    Brat13, you should go back to defending the AZ law and not proposing your own immigration reform ideas.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    In Response to Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???:
    "Not true. As a matter of fact "anchor babies" is a new phenomena! It was decided many times by the SCOTUS that a baby born in the US to a non-citizen is NOT a citizen of the US. They are a citizen of the country the parents are citizens of." Okay jackazz, you try and assert that the babies born in the US thing is a new phenomena, and you say the SCOTUS established precedent on that.  I cite the 14th amendment, part of the Constitution, although yes, it was added after the Civil War, which still makes it more than 100 years old.  Incidentally in my citation I noted that the 14th amendment was added after the Civil War, and I should have distinguished between the original date of the ratification vs. the addition of the 14th. And the author also didn't want American Indians to be citizens, and the Supreme Court has established precedent for babies born in the US to be citizens. "In Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a man born within the United States to foreigners (in that case, Chinese citizens) who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States [ 10 ] and who were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power, was a citizen of the United States. Under these two rulings, the following persons born in the United States are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and thus do not qualify for automatic citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment: Children born to foreign diplomats Children born to enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States Children born to Native Americans who are members of tribes not taxed (These were later given full citizenship by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 .) All other persons born in the United States were citizens." Are we seriously arguing whether babies born in the US are citizens?  You might not like it, but that's the law.  I was just stunned by your ignorance in the first post I responded to.  Don't give me that history argument.  I do a google and there's my answer to history questions.  I'm not a walking encyclopedia of US history.  I'm good on the late 20th century, post WW2.  Let's not get into Glenn Beck lecturing us on his version of US history with his chalkboard and OLIGARHY spelling. I'm pragmatic about the immigration issue.  I think it's overblown.  I think it's powered by a lot of racism.  I feel like there is plenty of room in this country for immigrants who want to be good citizens.  We're a nation of immigrants, and it's pretty wack to shut the door once you decided foreigners need not apply.  Just accept that we're going to be overrun by Asians and Hispanics and deal with it.
    Posted by tiresias

    Nimrod! I usually don't go there but I make exception for the truly stupid!

    You said "It is as old as the Constitution". I said No it isn't and I was correct.
    Look at the Ark ruling and as I said, the court ruled on the basis of his parents having a domicile in the US. In legal terms a domicile is a legal residence. HOW can an illegal alien have a legal domicile in a country the invaded? At that time immigration to the US was basically wide open. Little or no rules so no "illegal" designation.
    Look at Elk V. Wilkins - American Indian born on a reservation in the territorial boundaries of the US. He was denied citizenship in 1884 based on the facts of ... A) Reservations were not under the jurisdiction of the US government and therefore were NOT US territory. B) Because of his "alien" status he could not satisfy the Citizenship Clause because he had allegiance to the tribe. C) The Court held Elk was not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth because although born in the boundaries of the US he was a citizen of an alien nation. He had to get in line and go through the legal process for citizenship as if he was born in Germany. The 1889 Ark case should have looked at that ruling and said the same thing. Parents who owe allegiance to another nation cannot regardless of birth place, birth a US citizen. Ark's parents eventually did go back to China.
    In 1965 (35 years ago. Pretty recent!) the Immigration and Naturalization ACT was passed and gave preference to family reunification. The Family Reunification clause gave preference to families of children born in the US for visas. That is where the term anchor baby was born.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from brat13. Show brat13's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    Sounds a lot like the argument that Obama can't be a US citizen because he had  British citizenship through his father.  You're not a birther, are you brat13?  Don't make me do some research to find out whether you questioned Obama's citizenship.  Then I go and find
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Try to keep up... His mother was a US Citizen and he was born in Hawaii which was a US state. That would make him a US Citizen.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ItsATravesty. Show ItsATravesty's posts

    Re: Obama sues Az for enforcing immigration laws, but refuses to sue states that set up sanctuary cities???

    It's official.. Obama is a lying socialist US citizen.

    Seems the Left Wing Loonies bring up his citizenship the most.

    More obfuscation. Anything is better than the Messiahs current state of affairs (apologies to Al Gore).
     

Share