• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Papers Please

Skeptic Tank said:
Their citizenship was obtained via her unlawful actions. Revoke their citizenship and deport them with her.

Overturn the incorrect ruling by a single judge in the 1980's declaring this birthright citizenship nonsense. Revoke all citizenship obtained via this farce when the parent or parents were illegal aliens.

Tabulate how much she cost American taxpayers during her time here, and including any costs her children generated, and send an invoice to Mexico.
Click to expand...


Great. Here comes our resident White Supremist......
 
Skeptic Tank said:
Their citizenship was obtained via her unlawful actions. Revoke their citizenship and deport them with her.

Overturn the incorrect ruling by a single judge in the 1980's declaring this birthright citizenship nonsense. Revoke all citizenship obtained via this farce when the parent or parents were illegal aliens.

Tabulate how much she cost American taxpayers during her time here, and including any costs her children generated, and send an invoice to Mexico.
Click to expand...
If we throw out the aliens, poor Mr. Trump will end up single again. After all, there are some dirty jobs no real American will do.
 
bruto said:
....
Of course I'm sure you'd be happy to revoke the 14th amendment, since it goes contrary to so many of your stated priciples, but birthright citizenship is built into that, and it goes a bit prior to the 1980's, I think. And whether it's right or not, good or not, an oversight or not, the 14th amendment does not specify that the parents of a native born American be legal.
Click to expand...

"Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,.... "

Some believe that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part means the parent must be here legally. Like on a visa.

Has it ever been parsed by the courts? Or does 'under the jurisdiction' mean section 1 does not count in foreign countries?

eta Or maybe it means you are not a citizen if you are not on American Soil? Or maybe it means you are a citizen if born in the Canal Zone? (Does the canal Zone still exist?)
 
Last edited:
Christensen said the raids, which began Monday and ended Friday at noon, found undocumented immigrants from a dozen Latin American countries. “We’re talking about people who are threats to public safety or a threat to the integrity of the immigration system,” she said, noting that the majority of those detained were serious criminals, including some who were convicted of murder and domestic violence.

....

David Marin, ICE’s field director in the Los Angeles area, said in a conference call with reporters Friday that 75 percent of the approximately 160 people detained in the operation this week had felony convictions; the rest had misdemeanors or were in the United States illegally. Officials said Friday night that 37 of those detained in Los Angeles had been deported to Mexico.

...

Federal immigration officials, as well as activists, said that the majority of those detained were adult men, and that no children were taken into custody.
Click to expand...

Targeted raids, apprehending mostly known adult male felons.

Are they driving around picking up people at random? No, they are not.

Is this thread just a giant straw man?

"Across the country, about 11 percent of Americans do not have government-issued photo identification cards, such as a driver’s license or a passport, according to Wendy Weiser of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law."
Click to expand...

Is this including children and non citizens? I'd need to see evidence of this claim. I see it in the voter ID threads, and I'm not convinced that these people cannot easily obtain an ID.

Personally, I'm more about keeping people out that rounding up everyone who is already here. However if they are known criminals, I'm fine with it.

For the people here walking around without ID, you might consider carrying one for a lot of reasons. I'm thinking medical emergencies mainly. Then again, people are not being pulled over at random and arrested because they are "brown" and look like non-citizens. Or is there a new policy I am unaware of?

If Americans start getting caught up in deportations at an alarming rate then that would be a concern.
 
TheGoldcountry said:
That always works well.
Click to expand...

Or a number tattooed on. You can't leaver home without it! And in case of mass death, it would readily identify your body.

Maybe do it on a fore arm, where the aurthorities can readily see it, then no unwarranted search needed. "Roll up your sleeves" doesn't seem like an unreasonable request.
 
mgidm86 said:
Targeted raids, apprehending mostly known adult male felons.

Are they driving around picking up people at random? No, they are not.

Is this thread just a giant straw man?



Is this including children and non citizens? I'd need to see evidence of this claim. I see it in the voter ID threads, and I'm not convinced that these people cannot easily obtain an ID.

Personally, I'm more about keeping people out that rounding up everyone who is already here. However if they are known criminals, I'm fine with it.

For the people here walking around without ID, you might consider carrying one for a lot of reasons. I'm thinking medical emergencies mainly. Then again, people are not being pulled over at random and arrested because they are "brown" and look like non-citizens. Or is there a new policy I am unaware of?

If Americans start getting caught up in deportations at an alarming rate then that would be a concern.
Click to expand...

So the mother of two US citizens who had a felony conviction for using a fake SSN in 2008 and voluntarily went in for her 8th annual check-in with ICE counts as a violent felon I suppose? :rolleyes:

That alarming rate even beats the callousness of xjx388's if they're not like me they don't matter criteria.
 
Last edited:
casebro said:
"Amendment XIV Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,.... "

Some believe that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" part means the parent must be here legally. Like on a visa.

Has it ever been parsed by the courts? Or does 'under the jurisdiction' mean section 1 does not count in foreign countries?

eta Or maybe it means you are not a citizen if you are not on American Soil? Or maybe it means you are a citizen if born in the Canal Zone? (Does the canal Zone still exist?)
Click to expand...
I believe territories count, and when the Canal Zone was a territory it would have. It's no longer a territory.

The issue of jurisdiction is debated. I don't think it's been definitively decided. It's been to the Supreme Court only in the case of legal immigrants and former slaves, as far as I know. They have declined some cases on this, including, it seems, one that might have overturned the racist exclusion of natives of American Samoa.

It appears that the amendment was worded initially to exclude those born in Indian territory, who were later added by statute. There appears to be some dispute as to whether this law would also exclude children of parents who owe allegiance to another country via dual citizenship, or whether it would only apply if such allegiance were claimed for them, or neither. Given that many children who are indisputably citizens owing to one or another factor also still enjoy inherent dual citizenship if they want it, puts a few worms in that can.

In general, it seems that the jurisdiction clause is interpreted to mean that a person owes his loyalty only to the United States, and, aside from the shameful exclusion of Indians in its original form, and Samoans now, it would exclude the children of diplomats and tourists and others who do not intend themselves or their children to be American or to be subject to American jurisdiction. The status of illegal immigrants is, obviously, a little ambiguous, but along with the argument that an illegal immigrant is not a legal resident, one could also argue that when birthright citizenship is claimed, the intent is clearly for that person be a citizen.
 
casebro said:
Or a number tattooed on. You can't leaver home without it! And in case of mass death, it would readily identify your body.

Maybe do it on a fore arm, where the aurthorities can readily see it, then no unwarranted search needed. "Roll up your sleeves" doesn't seem like an unreasonable request.
Click to expand...

You have got to be kidding.........
 
Let's be frank: if the illegals were White Canadians,we would not be having this discussion.
 
dudalb said:
Let's be frank: if the illegals were White Canadians,we would not be having this discussion.
Click to expand...

True. We would have sent those hosers right back to the Great White North, along with the moose they rode in on, and nobody would have squawked about it (except maybe to say "Get the hell oot, and stay oot!"
 
Plus this 'just carry your ID on you' thing is still missing the point. The most frequently carried form of ID (driver's license) does not constitute proof of citizenship or lawful residence.
 
casebro said:
Or a number tattooed on. You can't leaver home without it! And in case of mass death, it would readily identify your body.

Maybe do it on a fore arm, where the aurthorities can readily see it, then no unwarranted search needed. "Roll up your sleeves" doesn't seem like an unreasonable request.
Click to expand...

How about we just put it on the forehead, then they don't even need to have people roll up their sleeves, it's in plain sight.
 
casebro said:
Or a number tattooed on. You can't leaver home without it! And in case of mass death, it would readily identify your body.

Maybe do it on a fore arm, where the aurthorities can readily see it, then no unwarranted search needed. "Roll up your sleeves" doesn't seem like an unreasonable request.
Click to expand...

Just implant a microchip. If it's good enough to identify a dog it should work for a person.
 
Silly Green Monkey said:
I'm alarmed by any rate of Americans caught up in deportations.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, you must know that law enforcement is going to result in innocent people being targeted. That is inevitable and the fact that it happens occasionally shouldn't dissuade us from enforcing laws, unless the number of innocents being hassled reaches alarming levels.

For the record, I don't agree we should have deported that mother. People who have been here for awhile, whose only crime is trying to make it easier to work, should pay some restitution and have a chance to become permanent residents. That being said, when you come into a country illegally, you takes your chances.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom