Birthright citizenship- Supreme Court Hearing

[Frozenbeernuts]

The left sure picked a retard to be a supreme court justice.

[GobbleDog]

1 hour ago, TimHauck said:

30 is a lot more than zero.

interesting that MAGA is simultaneously hating on Europe because they won’t help with the Strait of Hormuz but also saying we should follow their lead on birthright citizenship.

I wouldn't care if every country had the law. The US shouldn't. 

Imagine illegally sneaking into whatever country and having a child. Would you really expect them to suddenly grant your kid citizenship along with whatever benefits are associated with it?  Of course not.

But somehow the US is supposed to do that, which of course only encourages more people to illegally immigrate. It's not like we need more people to help boost the economy ... the population is already 340+ million and exponentially growing.  I'm surprised any American supports this. White, black, Mexican or whatever. This is our country. Why should we allow it to be the world's doormat? 

[WhiteWonder]

3 hours ago, Caine Mutiny said:

My opinion, just like yours, is relevant on all issues that don’t involve science or fact. 

you're flailing with this.

did you ever give any opinion on Covid? masks? social distancing? the jab? ... can fact not be applied to almost every topic? I love golf and give my opinion on it quite a bit... lot of physics in golf and im no physics expert. 

[WhiteWonder]

1 hour ago, GobbleDog said:

I wouldn't care if every country had the law. The US shouldn't. 

Imagine illegally sneaking into whatever country and having a child. Would you really expect them to suddenly grant your kid citizenship along with whatever benefits are associated with it?  Of course not.

But somehow the US is supposed to do that, which of course only encourages more people to illegally immigrate. It's not like we need more people to help boost the economy ... the population is already 340+ million and exponentially growing.  I'm surprised any American supports this. White, black, Mexican or whatever. This is our country. Why should we allow it to be the world's doormat? 

well said. Birthright citizenship is ridiculous and I am also surprised any American supports this, regardless of where they stand on illegal immigration. The only reason to support it is because you support the overall concept of illegal immigration and it's directly in support of your stance. Objectively, there is no reason to support it. 

[thegeneral]

1 hour ago, Frozenbeernuts said:

The left sure picked a retard to be a supreme court justice.

I point you to the White House

[Hardcore troubadour]

“Local allegiance” She’s retarded. 

[Caine Mutiny]

38 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

“Local allegiance” She’s retarded. 

Just so embarrassing for you to write this. She’s at least 20 times as smart as you are. 

[TimHauck]

1 hour ago, GobbleDog said:

I wouldn't care if every country had the law. The US shouldn't. 

Imagine illegally sneaking into whatever country and having a child. Would you really expect them to suddenly grant your kid citizenship along with whatever benefits are associated with it?  Of course not.

But somehow the US is supposed to do that, which of course only encourages more people to illegally immigrate. It's not like we need more people to help boost the economy ... the population is already 340+ million and exponentially growing.  I'm surprised any American supports this. White, black, Mexican or whatever. This is our country. Why should we allow it to be the world's doormat? 

I don’t really have a strong opinion on what the law “should” be, my comments are more based on how the amendment is written and how it’s been interpreted since its inception. 

I can see both sides of what it “should” be, I certainly don’t agree with a poster that calls it “ridiculous.” I get that it encourages illegal immigration, but if a child was born here, IMO they have more connection to this country than wherever their parents came from.  

[jerryskids]

4 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

You're probably wasting your time.    

Here's a few more items from the Ark decision that strike me as open to interpretation:

1. "The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, ...

We've already discussed the permanent domicile/residence.  But to the bolded: Is a person here illegally, who if they work gets paid under the table, "carrying on business" in a way subject to jurisdiction of US economic laws and regulations?

2. "Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the Emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here, and are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. . . ."

I'm surprised this isn't being mentioned more.  It is quite reasonable to say that illegal aliens are not permitted by the United States to reside here.

I look forward to meaningful responses, and to Moderate Tim finding a quote of mine from 2007 which uses a different tense or something equally inane.   

[shadrap]

2 hours ago, GobbleDog said:

I wouldn't care if every country had the law. The US shouldn't. 

Imagine illegally sneaking into whatever country and having a child. Would you really expect them to suddenly grant your kid citizenship along with whatever benefits are associated with it?  Of course not.

But somehow the US is supposed to do that, which of course only encourages more people to illegally immigrate. It's not like we need more people to help boost the economy ... the population is already 340+ million and exponentially growing.  I'm surprised any American supports this. White, black, Mexican or whatever. This is our country. Why should we allow it to be the world's doormat? 

I wholeheartedly agree & you explained this extremely well.  Ask the United Kingdom how unfettered immigration has worked out over the last 30 years.  It hasn't and are suffering the consequences.

thanx

[Reality]

Matt Walsh explains this perfectly. You guys are wasting your time arguing with folks who simply aren't rational.

 

[Hardcore troubadour]

Local allegiance.  Left wing sheep nod along.  

[TimHauck]

22 minutes ago, Reality said:

Matt Walsh explains this perfectly. You guys are wasting your time arguing with folks who simply aren't rational.

 

This is isn’t really an argument about what it “should” be.  It’s an argument about how the constitution is written.  HTH.

[squistion]

 

[RaiderHaters Revenge]

4 minutes ago, squistion said:

 

God damn she’s a retard. No wonder you love her

[Thornton Melon]

23 minutes ago, TimHauck said:

This is isn’t really an argument about what it “should” be.  It’s an argument about how the constitution is written.  HTH.

So, how do you think it should be? Assuming this case gets shot down by the SC, would you be in favor of amending the Constitution to deny children of illegal immigrants birthright citizenship? Yes or No.

[TimHauck]

16 minutes ago, Thornton Melon said:

So, how do you think it should be? Assuming this case gets shot down by the SC, would you be in favor of amending the Constitution to deny children of illegal immigrants birthright citizenship? Yes or No.

I said earlier I didn’t really have a strong opinion either way.  If you forced me to say yes or no I’d say no, but kinda in part because that’s how it’s always been.  I’m good with closing loopholes on “birth tourism” of course though.

14 hours ago, TimHauck said:

I don’t really have a strong opinion on what the law “should” be, my comments are more based on how the amendment is written and how it’s been interpreted since its inception. 

I can see both sides of what it “should” be, I certainly don’t agree with a poster that calls it “ridiculous.” I get that it encourages illegal immigration, but if a child was born here, IMO they have more connection to this country than wherever their parents came from.  

 

[dogcows]

1 hour ago, Thornton Melon said:

So, how do you think it should be? Assuming this case gets shot down by the SC, would you be in favor of amending the Constitution to deny children of illegal immigrants birthright citizenship? Yes or No.

No. 

It’s the constitution and the 14th amendment has been in effect since the 1800s.

”Great Replacement” theorists can bite me. 

[Caine Mutiny]

U.S. Solicitor: We are living in a new world. 

Justice Roberts: It’s the same Constitution. 
 

My favorite moment. 

[Caine Mutiny]

1 hour ago, Thornton Melon said:

So, how do you think it should be? Assuming this case gets shot down by the SC, would you be in favor of amending the Constitution to deny children of illegal immigrants birthright citizenship? Yes or No.

No. 

[TheNewGirl]

14 minutes ago, dogcows said:

No. 

It’s the constitution and the 14th amendment has been in effect since the 1800s.

”Great Replacement” theorists can bite me. 

As long as birth rates here decline like they have been, we will need immigrants. It's not a theory. US citizens are aging, and we aren't having babies like other countries are. Sure AI might be replacing us, but we are also losing workers in other ways. 

 

[Caine Mutiny]

12 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

As long as birth rates here decline like they have been, we will need immigrants. It's not a theory. US citizens are aging, and we aren't having babies like other countries are. Sure AI might be replacing us, but we are also losing workers in other ways. 

 

MAGA is not anti-immigrant per se IMO. They strongly approved when Trump proposed allowing white South Africans to come here. 
 

MAGA is anti- black and brown immigrants. 

[Hardcore troubadour]

31 minutes ago, dogcows said:

No. 

It’s the constitution and the 14th amendment has been in effect since the 1800s.

”Great Replacement” theorists can bite me. 

It’s not a theory.  It’s a fact. 

[dogcows]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

It’s not a theory.  It’s a fact. 

Yes it’s a fact that you can bite me. 

[squistion]

2 minutes ago, Caine Mutiny said:

MAGA is not anti-immigrant per se IMO. They strongly approved when Trump proposed allowing white South Africans to come here. 
 

MAGA is anti- black and brown immigrants. 

And they claim they are not racist. 

[Hardcore troubadour]

4 minutes ago, Caine Mutiny said:

MAGA is not anti-immigrant per se IMO. They strongly approved when Trump proposed allowing white South Africans to come here. 
 

MAGA is anti- black and brown immigrants. 

All 200 of them. Shut up. 

[TheNewGirl]

11 minutes ago, Caine Mutiny said:

MAGA is not anti-immigrant per se IMO. They strongly approved when Trump proposed allowing white South Africans to come here. 
 

MAGA is anti- black and brown immigrants. 

:sigh: 

I didn't mention MAGA at all. Not sure why you had to quote me and spew this. 

I am not MAGA, so cut this sh!t out. 

[TheNewGirl]

7 minutes ago, dogcows said:

Yes it’s a fact that you can bite me. 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4302270/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3753808/#:~:text=Immigration has become a major,in our demographic accounting system.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5794227/

[Caine Mutiny]

3 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

:sigh: 

I didn't mention MAGA at all. Not sure why you had to quote me and spew this. 

 

I agreed with what you wrote and thought you were criticizing MAGA’s position on immigration. 

[TheNewGirl]

Just now, Caine Mutiny said:

I agreed with what you wrote and thought you were criticizing MAGA’s position on immigration. 

No. 

I was stating that it's not a theory. 

I never once mentioned MAGA in my post and no where in your post did you say, "I agree with you." You just used it as a chance to talk about MAGA. 

 

[Caine Mutiny]

Just now, TheNewGirl said:

No. 

I was stating that it's not a theory. 

I never once mentioned MAGA in my post and no where in your post did you say, "I agree with you." You just used it as a chance to talk about MAGA. 

 

I don’t need to respond to you to have a chance to talk about MAGA. I chose to do so because I agreed with your post. At least I thought I did. 

I agree that we need immigrants. However the “Great Replacement Theory” holds that white people in this country are being DELIBERATELY replaced by black and brown people. It’s the “deliberate” part that makes it a theory, and its the “this is a problem” part that makes it racist as hell. 

See, for me and most people who aren’t racists, there is no problem. We don’t care if white people become a minority. We don’t care if black and brown people become majorities. It doesn’t scare us. If it scares you you’re a racist. HTH

[Hardcore troubadour]

They aren’t just replacing white people.  Poor Tim is too ignorant to see that. They are replacing voters. 

[Caine Mutiny]

4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

They aren’t just replacing white people.  Poor Tim is too ignorant to see that. They are replacing voters. 

You mean white voters don’t you? 

[Hardcore troubadour]

34 minutes ago, Caine Mutiny said:

You mean white voters don’t you? 

Working class voters that your side have been hemorrhaging for quite a while now. That includes black and Spanish Americans. 

[jerryskids]

57 minutes ago, Caine Mutiny said:

MAGA is not anti-immigrant per se IMO. They strongly approved when Trump proposed allowing white South Africans to come here. 
 

MAGA is anti- black and brown immigrants. 

I think I convinced myself earlier that I'm not MAGA based on 7-ish criteria you provided, but regardless, I think we should follow the lead of uber liberal Canada with its immigration policy.

Quote

Canada is reducing immigration levels to stabilize population growth, shifting from 500,000 permanent residents in 2024 to 395,000 in 2025, and further to 365,000 by 2027. The 2025–2027 policy focuses on economic immigration and transitioning temporary residents already in Canada, targeting high-demand sectors like healthcare, skilled trades, and French language proficiency. [1, 2]

Reduced immigration, focusing on economic immigration targeting high-demand sectors (our sectors would differ some, of course).  I don't care if they are from Nigeria, Argentina, or India.  Well, maybe India a little until they fix the H1B issue.  But you get the idea.

Deal?   

[Caine Mutiny]

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

Working class voters that your side have been hemorrhaging for quite a while now. That includes black and Spanish Americans. 

Again if it’s not a racial issue why do you care? Some of these new voters will be Democrats, sure. Some will be Republicans. People will choose for themselves, vote for what they believe are their best interests. Why does this scare you? 

[Hardcore troubadour]

Just now, Caine Mutiny said:

Again if it’s not a racial issue why do you care? Some of these new voters will be Democrats, sure. Some will be Republicans. People will choose for themselves, vote for what they believe are their best interests. Why does this scare you? 

They won’t be republicans for one or two generations.  Meanwhile you keep them on the dole so they vote your way. I don’t think it’s fair that your side wants to win that way. 

[Caine Mutiny]

1 minute ago, jerryskids said:

I think I convinced myself earlier that I'm not MAGA based on 7-ish criteria you provided, but regardless, I think we should follow the lead of uber liberal Canada with its immigration policy.

Reduced immigration, focusing on economic immigration targeting high-demand sectors (our sectors would differ some, of course).  I don't care if they are from Nigeria, Argentina, or India.  Well, maybe India a little until they fix the H1B issue.  But you get the idea.

Deal?   

No. I already wrote I believe in open immigration. The Ellis Island model for all races and nationalities. I’m not afraid of being flooded, not afraid of over population. I am a capitalist; I am for free trade and free movement.

[dogcows]

42 minutes ago, TheNewGirl said:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4302270/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3753808/#:~:text=Immigration has become a major,in our demographic accounting system.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5794227/

Thanks for the links. The third article especially gets into the benefits of immigration on the USA.

Human migration is a fact. The “Great Replacement” theory is not.

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

Immigration is how the nation started. It has been a constant throughout our history. IMO, those who want to limit it now don’t understand that the steady drumbeat of immigration over time is what made (and keeps) America a superpower. The best and brightest from all over WANT to come here. People see America as something they want to be part of and make even better.

Sealing the borders over racist fears of being “replaced” hurts the nation; it doesn’t make it great.

[Caine Mutiny]

2 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

They won’t be republicans for one or two generations.  Meanwhile you keep them on the dole so they vote your way. I don’t think it’s fair that your side wants to win that way. 

On this issue I don’t have a side. 
 

ETA Immigrants don’t come here to be on “the dole”. This something that you don’t seem to understand. You should though,