PDA

View Full Version : Trump: The 14th Amendment Won’t Hold Up In Court



Cigar
08-19-2015, 10:46 AM
Bill O’Reilly interview Donald Trump tonight, where he put particular focus on Trump’s newest idea for immigration by eliminating birthright citizenship. O’Reilly said that even though he was intrigued by his call to curb illegal immigration, but challenged him by saying that his ideas for mass deportations can’t happen under the 14th Amendment.

Trump responded that O’Reilly’s concerns by saying he was wrong about how the Constitution applies to anchor babies. “Many lawyers are saying that’s not the way it is in terms of this,” Trump said. “They are saying it is not going to hold up in court. It will have to be tested but they say it will not hold up in court.”

O’Reilly agreed that the country needed stronger laws and borders, but said that the federal courts would never allow a mass deportation for those who are entitled due process by their American citizenship. “Do you envision federal police kicking in the doors around the country dragging families out and putting them on a bus,” O’Reilly asked.

Trump retorted that he doesn’t think they have American citizenship, and that there are many lawyers that agree with him. When asked about whether he would pursue a constitutional amendment, Trump dismissed the idea, saying that it would take too long and he would prefer somehow testing to see whether anchor babies were truly American citizens.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-to-oreilly-the-14th-amendment-wont-hold-up-in-court/

http://cdn.funnyhub.com/2015/jan/facepalm/facepalm01.gif

whatukno
08-19-2015, 10:50 AM
Odd, going against the 14th Amendment? Gee, who would have thought the right wing would try and take away people's citizenship, I wonder what other amendments they look forward to eliminating?

Cigar
08-19-2015, 10:53 AM
Oops ...

http://noladefender.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/article_image/jindalmug.jpg

Mac-7
08-19-2015, 10:54 AM
Odd, going against the 14th Amendment? Gee, who would have thought the right wing would try and take away people's citizenship, I wonder what other amendments they look forward to eliminating?

People who are citizens today would not lose it by repealing the 14th amendment.

Private Pickle
08-19-2015, 10:54 AM
Odd, going against the 14th Amendment? Gee, who would have thought the right wing would try and take away people's citizenship, I wonder what other amendments they look forward to eliminating?

The 2nd? Oh wait...that's the Libs..

Mac-7
08-19-2015, 10:55 AM
Oops ...

http://noladefender.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/article_image/jindalmug.jpg

You sure are misinformed cigar.

exotix
08-19-2015, 11:01 AM
You sure are misinformed cigar.'Ah got's mine and you ain't gett'n yours'

http://i62.tinypic.com/wk249j.png

Cigar
08-19-2015, 11:06 AM
You sure are misinformed cigar.

Bobby Jindal was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baton_Rouge,_Louisiana) on June 10, 1971. He is the first of two sons of Amar and Raj Jindal, immigrants from Punjab (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab), India (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India). His father, Amar Jindal is a Civil Engineer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Engineering) and graduate of Guru Nanak Dev University (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru_Nanak_Dev_University)[/URL] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal#cite_note-tribuneindia.com-5) and Punjab University (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab_University). Raj née Gupta Jindal is a graduate of [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajasthan_University"]Rajasthan University (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Jindal#cite_note-7).

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

Chew slowly before swallowing :laugh:

Cletus
08-19-2015, 11:15 AM
I have no problem with the 14th or the idea of birthright citizenship. People need to understand though, that birthright does not extend to the child's parents or anyone other than the child itself.

exotix
08-19-2015, 11:16 AM
I have no problem with the 14th or the idea of birthright citizenship. People need to understand though, that birthright does not extend to the child's parents or anyone other than the child itself.
Michelle Malkin thanks you.

Cletus
08-19-2015, 11:17 AM
Bobby Jindal was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baton_Rouge,_Louisiana) on June 10, 1971. He is the first of two sons of Amar and Raj Jindal, immigrants from Punjab (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab), India (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India). His father, Amar Jindal is a Civil Engineer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Engineering) and graduate of Guru Nanak Dev University (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guru_Nanak_Dev_University) and Punjab University (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punjab_University). Raj née Gupta Jindal is a graduate of Rajasthan University (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajasthan_University).

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

Chew slowly before swallowing :laugh:

His parents were not illegal immigrants. Mac-7 is correct.

Would you like some water to wash down that crow?

Cletus
08-19-2015, 11:18 AM
Michelle Malkin thanks you.

Okay. I have no idea why you said that, and I suspect you probably don't either.

exotix
08-19-2015, 11:20 AM
His parents were not illegal immigrants. Mac-7 is correct.

Would you like some water to wash down that crow?http://i59.tinypic.com/sccll0.png

exotix
08-19-2015, 11:23 AM
Okay. I have no idea why you said that, and I suspect you probably don't either.
Only an idiot doesn't know she's a Philippine anchor baby.

Cigar
08-19-2015, 11:25 AM
His parents were not illegal immigrants. Mac-7 is correct.

Would you like some water to wash down that crow?

Neither was Barack Husein Obama ... :laugh: I'll Drink to that and Blow some Smoke your way. :grin:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/11/e3/e5/11e3e55f56ff339ad64f3f98472c7075.jpg

Cletus
08-19-2015, 11:37 AM
Who claimed Obama was?

I think he is the worst President in the history of the Republic, but I have never doubted his citizenship status.

Thanks, but I will pass on the drink. However, I would be more than happy to fire up a good Maduro with you sometime.

Cigar
08-19-2015, 11:38 AM
Who claimed Obama was?

I think he is the worst President in the history of the Republic, but I have never doubted his citizenship status.

Thanks, but I will pass on the drink. However, I would be more than happy to fire up a good Maduro with you sometime.

Everyday on this Forum some makes that claim ... you're denials are futile :laugh:

AeonPax
08-19-2015, 11:51 AM
`
To a certain extent, Trump is right. There never has been a serious test of the 14th Amendment in court...meaning to say, a case that could set precedence. This is a gamble however. This current SCOTUS did not like legislating from the bench, in Obergefell v. Hodges, at least according to the dissenting opinions. Pushing a case against the 14th would be like asking SCOTUS if the 14th is constitutional. The point here is that such a challenge to the 14th can be legislated without the courts involvement.

Be careful of what you wish for...you may get it.

Mac-7
08-19-2015, 12:09 PM
http://i59.tinypic.com/sccll0.png

I don't think two college graduate engineers would have a hard time staying in the US whether they had a child here or not.

and I've seen no evidence that bobby jindal's parents used him as an anchor baby.

Mac-7
08-19-2015, 12:10 PM
Only an idiot doesn't know she's a Philippine anchor baby.

You mean she was born in the United States?

But an anchor baby?

Her parents were in the US legally.

whatukno
08-19-2015, 12:54 PM
The 2nd? Oh wait...that's the Libs..

Yep, your precious gun, versus having any constitutional rights at all, including the 2nd Amendment. Gee, which movement really hates freedom more?

I doubt they will just throw out the Latinos if this goes through, it will be anyone that isn't a property owner, all of a sudden they will be people without a country. With no rights or protections under the law.

Private Pickle
08-19-2015, 12:56 PM
Yep, your precious gun, versus having any constitutional rights at all, including the 2nd Amendment. Gee, which movement really hates freedom more?

I doubt they will just throw out the Latinos if this goes through, it will be anyone that isn't a property owner, all of a sudden they will be people without a country. With no rights or protections under the law.

Sounds like a liberal agenda to me.

birddog
08-19-2015, 01:59 PM
Odd, going against the 14th Amendment? Gee, who would have thought the right wing would try and take away people's citizenship, I wonder what other amendments they look forward to eliminating?

He does not go against it. Section 5 allows for it with the Congress.

Mac-7
08-19-2015, 02:37 PM
He does not go against it. Section 5 allows for it with the Congress.

Whatukno often gets it wrong and this is no exception.

We are not trying to take anyone's citizenship away.

But rather deny birthright citizenship to the children of future casual visitors and illegal aliens if they happen to be born here.

whatukno
08-19-2015, 04:14 PM
He does not go against it. Section 5 allows for it with the Congress.

Like conservatives are going to stop with "anchor babies". "most" Conservatives hate the idea of equal rights under the law. They don't want a level playing field. "anchor babies" are just the low hanging fruit, the easy pickings.

The true goal of this type of campaign is to rip away the constitutional rights of anyone who doesn't own property. Combine this, with the right wing's plan to get rid of the minimum wage (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/03/17/3634877/jeb-bush-minimum-wage/), deregulate all business. including deregulating OSHA (http://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/for-safer-workplaces-get-rid-of-osha-standards-2) and completely eliminating the EPA (http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/6065-the-case-for-ending-the-epa), along with their constant fight against any labor unions (http://thehill.com/regulation/labor/249317-republicans-picking-new-fight-with-labor). And you start to see that the Conservative wing of this country is working towards a slave caste society.

Look how hard the right wing fought gay marriage, just a basic human right, for two grown adults that love each other to be able to enter into a binding legal contract so that the state would recognize that union just as any of our straight marriages are state recognized with all the legal protections afforded under that state recognition.

Look at the fight against a woman's right to control her own body. The right for a woman to choose when she is ready to have a child when she chooses and by the person she chooses is a constant battle thanks to Conservatives.

Look at even giving women who do the same damn work a man does, how much conservatives have fought against making sure they get equal pay.

I have an anecdote about this particular issue. While I was finishing college, fighting the state to get my child back after my ex wife went insane and the state took my son and her daughter away from her. I had a full time 50+ hour a week job at a car wash. Paying 60% of my gross pay in child support every single paycheck. (even though, through the process of getting my son back, I obtained a court order staying child support. They still took it anyway.) Yeah, us liberals are so fucking lazy. At my job, I was doing the same work as a fellow employee. (hell, to be truthful, she did far better work than I did) But she was getting paid significantly less than I was. (On paper anyway, after child support raped me every check, hobos were handing me money because they felt bad how little I was making.)

But the point was, that she was doing just as much work as I was doing, and she was frankly better at the job than I was. (I'm not saying I was bad at the job, she just was all around better.) But she made less than I did, and when I found out, I raised holy hell with my boss, and made her case without her knowledge or consent. (course, at that job, I kinda yelled at the boss, and pretty much everyone else except the customers. I'm kinda an asshole.) His argument was that I was struggling, having a hard time, going through so much, that he felt he should pay me more. I countered, that my personal life does suck at the moment, I am going through a heluva lot, but that doesn't matter to his bottom line. What matters is, that the customer is not only happy with the service received, but overwhelmed and ecstatic. A customer that is blown away by the job you preformed, is going to tell their friends about how awesome a place was to go. That generates good word of mouth. Which generates business, which helps him in the end.

His solution was to promote me, and then give her the amount I was making. THE FUCK?

But let me digress now back to the topic. Conservatives aren't for equal rights under the law,They want special rights for a select few. The rest, have to fight to even be anywhere near equal footing. I'm a healthy white male, the American dream is open to me. My future is bright. Thanks to my college education, I have a decent paying job that lands me comfortably in the middle class zone. Of course I'm not wealthy. But my credit is decent, My car is in good repair, and fully paid off and insured. I have a nice apartment. There's always food in the fridge, the electricity is always on, and to the dismay of many of you, my cable bill is always caught up. I have a comfortable existence. Not extravagant, My son is not for want for food, or clothes, or entertainment, in fact, because he wanted to go to church, I go with him on Sundays. I'm an atheist, but he wants to explore religion, and I feel it is his right, I think I'm spoiling my little clone. If I were conservative, I would be the person y'all would point at as an example of how to be a good American. But I'm liberal, so, you all automatically hate me and think I'm the enemy and want to cut my balls off (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/49303-bin-Laden-tapes-1960s-2001?p=1221980#post1221980).

But in actuality, it's conservatives that are the enemy of everything that freedom stands for. Liberals want to level the playing field, want to make the country a safer, more accepting place for all to live. But Conservatives? They want to have the wealthiest 1% control everything. From your birth to your death, what you do, and who you become determined by your station, gender, political affiliation, race, and factors that should be irrelevant to anyone but you.

Now, here we are, conservatives fighting against your very right to be a citizen of these United States because you were born here. They just aren't questioning the president's citizenship at this point, but every single American's. NOW, they are threatening your very jus soli (https://www.google.com/search?q=jus+soli&rlz=1C1LENN_enUS609US609&oq=jus+soli&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.2528j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8) citizenship. What factors do they want to include to make certain that a person born in this country is actually a citizen of this country? If I were voters, I would want to read that fine print before that goes through congress. What if they take Jus Soli citizenship literally? You have to be a landowner to have citizenship? Otherwise, what is your status? Do you get to vote if you are in an apartment? Do they go by your credit score?

Who is worthy of citizenship? If your birth in this country isn't going to be good enough, what exactly will be the qualifications? Your parent's place of birth? Your race? Your gender? Your credit score? Whether or not you own property?

These are the kinds of questions that need to be asked in detail before we go throwing constitutional amendments away.

birddog
08-19-2015, 04:23 PM
Like conservatives are going to stop with "anchor babies". "most" Conservatives hate the idea of equal rights under the law. They don't want a level playing field. "anchor babies" are just the low hanging fruit, the easy pickings.

The true goal of this type of campaign is to rip away the constitutional rights of anyone who doesn't own property. Combine this, with the right wing's plan to get rid of the minimum wage (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/03/17/3634877/jeb-bush-minimum-wage/), deregulate all business. including deregulating OSHA (http://www.safetyandhealthmagazine.com/articles/for-safer-workplaces-get-rid-of-osha-standards-2) and completely eliminating the EPA (http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/opinion/item/6065-the-case-for-ending-the-epa), along with their constant fight against any labor unions (http://thehill.com/regulation/labor/249317-republicans-picking-new-fight-with-labor). And you start to see that the Conservative wing of this country is working towards a slave caste society.

Look how hard the right wing fought gay marriage, just a basic human right, for two grown adults that love each other to be able to enter into a binding legal contract so that the state would recognize that union just as any of our straight marriages are state recognized with all the legal protections afforded under that state recognition.

Look at the fight against a woman's right to control her own body. The right for a woman to choose when she is ready to have a child when she chooses and by the person she chooses is a constant battle thanks to Conservatives.

Look at even giving women who do the same $#@! work a man does, how much conservatives have fought against making sure they get equal pay.

I have an anecdote about this particular issue. While I was finishing college, fighting the state to get my child back after my ex wife went insane and the state took my son and her daughter away from her. I had a full time 50+ hour a week job at a car wash. Paying 60% of my gross pay in child support every single paycheck. (even though, through the process of getting my son back, I obtained a court order staying child support. They still took it anyway.) Yeah, us liberals are so $#@!ing lazy. At my job, I was doing the same work as a fellow employee. (hell, to be truthful, she did far better work than I did) But she was getting paid significantly less than I was. (On paper anyway, after child support raped me every check, hobos were handing me money because they felt bad how little I was making.)

But the point was, that she was doing just as much work as I was doing, and she was frankly better at the job than I was. (I'm not saying I was bad at the job, she just was all around better.) But she made less than I did, and when I found out, I raised holy hell with my boss, and made her case without her knowledge or consent. (course, at that job, I kinda yelled at the boss, and pretty much everyone else except the customers. I'm kinda an $#@!.) His argument was that I was struggling, having a hard time, going through so much, that he felt he should pay me more. I countered, that my personal life does suck at the moment, I am going through a heluva lot, but that doesn't matter to his bottom line. What matters is, that the customer is not only happy with the service received, but overwhelmed and ecstatic. A customer that is blown away by the job you preformed, is going to tell their friends about how awesome a place was to go. That generates good word of mouth. Which generates business, which helps him in the end.

His solution was to promote me, and then give her the amount I was making. THE $#@!?

But let me digress now back to the topic. Conservatives aren't for equal rights under the law,They want special rights for a select few. The rest, have to fight to even be anywhere near equal footing. I'm a healthy white male, the American dream is open to me. My future is bright. Thanks to my college education, I have a decent paying job that lands me comfortably in the middle class zone. Of course I'm not wealthy. But my credit is decent, My car is in good repair, and fully paid off and insured. I have a nice apartment. There's always food in the fridge, the electricity is always on, and to the dismay of many of you, my cable bill is always caught up. I have a comfortable existence. Not extravagant, My son is not for want for food, or clothes, or entertainment, in fact, because he wanted to go to church, I go with him on Sundays. I'm an atheist, but he wants to explore religion, and I feel it is his right, I think I'm spoiling my little clone. If I were conservative, I would be the person y'all would point at as an example of how to be a good American. But I'm liberal, so, you all automatically hate me and think I'm the enemy and want to cut my balls off (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/49303-bin-Laden-tapes-1960s-2001?p=1221980#post1221980).

But in actuality, it's conservatives that are the enemy of everything that freedom stands for. Liberals want to level the playing field, want to make the country a safer, more accepting place for all to live. But Conservatives? They want to have the wealthiest 1% control everything. From your birth to your death, what you do, and who you become determined by your station, gender, political affiliation, race, and factors that should be irrelevant to anyone but you.

Now, here we are, conservatives fighting against your very right to be a citizen of these United States because you were born here. They just aren't questioning the president's citizenship at this point, but every single American's. NOW, they are threatening your very jus soli (https://www.google.com/search?q=jus+soli&rlz=1C1LENN_enUS609US609&oq=jus+soli&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.2528j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8) citizenship. What factors do they want to include to make certain that a person born in this country is actually a citizen of this country? If I were voters, I would want to read that fine print before that goes through congress. What if they take Jus Soli citizenship literally? You have to be a landowner to have citizenship? Otherwise, what is your status? Do you get to vote if you are in an apartment? Do they go by your credit score?

Who is worthy of citizenship? If your birth in this country isn't going to be good enough, what exactly will be the qualifications? Your parent's place of birth? Your race? Your gender? Your credit score? Whether or not you own property?

These are the kinds of questions that need to be asked in detail before we go throwing constitutional amendments away.


Oh, cry me a river, you bleeding heart liberal! "ukno" little!

whatukno
08-19-2015, 04:27 PM
Oh, cry me a river, you bleeding heart liberal! "ukno" little!

Wow, you obviously didn't read any of that. I was making the case for traditional conservative values versus what passes as conservative now. But holy shit, don't bother reading shit do you?

birddog
08-19-2015, 04:31 PM
Wow, you obviously didn't read any of that. I was making the case for traditional conservative values versus what passes as conservative now. But holy $#@!, don't bother reading $#@! do you?

I read it, and your drivel is not impressive or factual IMHO!

Mac-7
08-19-2015, 04:31 PM
Like conservatives are going to stop with "anchor babies". "most" Conservatives hate the idea of equal rights under the law.

They don't want a level playing field.

"anchor babies" are just the low hanging fruit, the easy pickings.

wrong.

it is liberals who want to tilt the playing field to give minorities an advantage.

For instance why should an immigration cheater be allowed to stay while foreigners who respect our laws have to wait years to immigrate here?

pragmatic
08-19-2015, 04:33 PM
Bill O’Reilly interview Donald Trump tonight, where he put particular focus on Trump’s newest idea for immigration by eliminating birthright citizenship. O’Reilly said that even though he was intrigued by his call to curb illegal immigration, but challenged him by saying that his ideas for mass deportations can’t happen under the 14th Amendment.

Trump responded that O’Reilly’s concerns by saying he was wrong about how the Constitution applies to anchor babies. “Many lawyers are saying that’s not the way it is in terms of this,” Trump said. “They are saying it is not going to hold up in court. It will have to be tested but they say it will not hold up in court.”

O’Reilly agreed that the country needed stronger laws and borders, but said that the federal courts would never allow a mass deportation for those who are entitled due process by their American citizenship. “Do you envision federal police kicking in the doors around the country dragging families out and putting them on a bus,” O’Reilly asked.

Trump retorted that he doesn’t think they have American citizenship, and that there are many lawyers that agree with him. When asked about whether he would pursue a constitutional amendment, Trump dismissed the idea, saying that it would take too long and he would prefer somehow testing to see whether anchor babies were truly American citizens.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/trump-to-oreilly-the-14th-amendment-wont-hold-up-in-court/

http://cdn.funnyhub.com/2015/jan/facepalm/facepalm01.gif


Saw the interview. Thought OReilly did a nice job feeding out the rope allowing Trump to sound like a doofus.

Trump is a cartoon.

whatukno
08-19-2015, 04:36 PM
I read it, and your drivel is not impressive or factual IMHO!

You are entitled to your own opinion, but you aren't entitled your own facts.

Mac-7
08-19-2015, 04:37 PM
Saw the interview. Thought OReilly did a nice job feeding out the rope allowing Trump to sound like a doofus.

Trump is a cartoon.

Bill orielly is a blowhard.

Trump is the only one making sense.

Common Sense
08-19-2015, 04:48 PM
Oh shit...I spit water all over my keyboard.

Howey
08-19-2015, 04:53 PM
Courts are incapable of declaring Constitutional amendments unconditional.

birddog
08-19-2015, 04:54 PM
Oh $#@!...I spit water all over my keyboard.


There's better ways to clean your keyboard. Just take a wet cloth and wipe it down real well. Then, give it a BJ with a hair dryer. :grin::wink:

Common Sense
08-19-2015, 04:56 PM
There's better ways to clean your keyboard. Just take a wet cloth and wipe it down real well. Then, give it a BJ with a hair dryer. :grin::wink:

Rubbing alcohol and a q tip works well.

whatukno
08-19-2015, 04:58 PM
wrong.

it is liberals who want to tilt the playing field to give minorities an advantage.

For instance why should an immigration cheater be allowed to stay while foreigners who respect our laws have to wait years to immigrate here?

It's simply leveling the playing field, At that car wash job, I had a black man struck to tears, because I made an impassioned speech about his exemplary work ethic, his dedication to the job, and his professionalism, in front of the entire crew and the owner of the business, earning him a promotion and a raise. two days after he chewed me out calling me every name in the book, and just coming short of trying to whoop my ass.

I totally earned this chewing out too. I know some of you would like to punch me in the mouth, this guy was right there with you. I wanted to make sure he was up to the job, so I pushed him past my breaking point. And for those of you who think this was just some mere car wash. Their low brow clients dive in Lexus, Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Cadillac. They regularly get Bentley's Maserati's, Tesla's, Porsche's. to show the clientele we normally dealt with.

To this day, I only recommend this car wash. Anywhere else, IMO, you're being ripped off.

People need a level playing field. I'm just as valuable as an employee as any other, unless they do a better job than I do. Then it doesn't matter whether that person is black, or Hispanic, or a woman, they deserve to be treated as I would, if I did the quality, and level of work they do.

birddog
08-19-2015, 04:59 PM
Courts are incapable of declaring Constitutional amendments unconditional.

I know you are a liberal and all, but could you do a better job with constructing a sentence? Can I assume you meant "unconstitutional" rather than "unconditional?" If so, Congress can fix the problem of "anchor babies" per Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

exotix
08-19-2015, 05:07 PM
Bill orielly is a blowhard.

Trump is the only one making sense.
http://linkis.com/url-image/http://crooksandliars.com/files/primary_image/15/07/tof-trump-mexicans-070615.jpg

Mac-7
08-19-2015, 05:30 PM
It's simply leveling the playing field, At that car wash job, I had a black man struck to tears, because I made an impassioned speech about his exemplary work ethic, his dedication to the job, and his professionalism, in front of the entire crew and the owner of the business, earning him a promotion and a raise. two days after he chewed me out calling me every name in the book, and just coming short of trying to whoop my ass.

I totally earned this chewing out too. I know some of you would like to punch me in the mouth, this guy was right there with you. I wanted to make sure he was up to the job, so I pushed him past my breaking point. And for those of you who think this was just some mere car wash. Their low brow clients dive in Lexus, Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Cadillac. They regularly get Bentley's Maserati's, Tesla's, Porsche's. to show the clientele we normally dealt with.

To this day, I only recommend this car wash. Anywhere else, IMO, you're being ripped off.

People need a level playing field. I'm just as valuable as an employee as any other, unless they do a better job than I do. Then it doesn't matter whether that person is black, or Hispanic, or a woman, they deserve to be treated as I would, if I did the quality, and level of work they do.

You are going off on a lot of peripheral issues other than the 14th amendment and birthright citizenship.

And I still say it is unfair to honest immigrants or potential immigrants who follow the rules when we reward immigration cheaters.

Darmosiel
08-19-2015, 05:55 PM
Sanders claims "open borders" is a Conservative notion. All that cheap labor.

But "open borders" is NOT the same thing as legalizing all the illegal immigrants here now.

Reagan did this and so did Bush.

Mac-7
08-19-2015, 06:04 PM
Sanders claims "open borders" is a Conservative notion. All that cheap labor.

But "open borders" is NOT the same thing as legalizing all the illegal immigrants here now.

Reagan did this and so did Bush.

Open borders is more of a libertarian concept.

Most conservatives are opposed to the idea of open borders and amnesty.

But Reagan was a conservative and he did sign the 1986 amnesty for 3 million illegal aliens.

so conservative leadership is not completely blameless.

The question is what to do moving forward?

Not who did what in the past.

Safety
08-19-2015, 06:07 PM
Open borders is more of a libertarian concept.

Most conservatives are opposed to the idea of open borders and amnesty.

But Reagan was a conservative and he did sign the 1986 amnesty for 3 million illegal aliens.

so conservative leadership is not completely blameless.

The question is what to do moving forward?

Not who did what in the past.

LoL, have to keep softening on the rhetoric, no? If this keeps up, before long you'll be congratulating Obama for deporting as many illegals as he has.

Peter1469
08-19-2015, 06:10 PM
Open borders would be fine if there were no welfare programs. Then all could compete in the free market.

Open borders with welfare open to migrants is tossing tax payer money down a rat-hole.

Mac-7
08-19-2015, 06:22 PM
LoL, have to keep softening on the rhetoric, no? If this keeps up, before long you'll be congratulating Obama for deporting as many illegals as he has.

I have discussed Reagan many times.

But every time a new liberal comes along and discovers the news about the 1986 amnesty they breathlessly report it here and I have to retrace the steps for them.

Dr. Who
08-19-2015, 06:26 PM
His parents were not illegal immigrants. Mac-7 is correct.

Would you like some water to wash down that crow?
Um...Jus soli only recognizes citizenship based on place of birth not the legality of the parent's status in the country. Jus sanguinis relies on the citizenship of the parents to confer citizenship upon the offspring. Children of illegal immigrants in America benefit equally from jus soli as do children of legal immigrants who are not yet citizens. Many countries do not recognize jus soli, only jus sanguinis. Were America to eliminate jus soli, all children born in America of legal immigrants would have to apply for citizenship.

Mac-7
08-19-2015, 06:31 PM
Trump is speaking on Fox News right this minute.

Mac-7
08-19-2015, 06:43 PM
Were America to eliminate jus soli, all children born in America of legal immigrants would have to apply for citizenship.

Not true.

it depends on how congress writes the law.

For instance the law could say "all persons born of American citizens or permanent legal residents are US citizens."

Cigar
08-19-2015, 06:43 PM
Trump is speaking on Fox News right this minute.

IT must be magic ... he's on CNN and MSNBC also :laugh:

Dr. Who
08-19-2015, 06:51 PM
Not true.

it depends on how congress writes the law.

For instance the law could say "all persons born of American citizens or permanent legal residents are US citizens."
That is not typical, probably because legal immigrants are still eligible for deportation.

Mac-7
08-19-2015, 06:54 PM
That is not typical, probably because legal immigrants are still eligible for deportation.

It all depends on how the law is written.

and there are so many ways to write it anything is possible.

whatukno
08-19-2015, 06:56 PM
Sure sure, mac-7, I get your point. the people that crossed illegally, need to go back home. I even agree with sending their children along with them.

I think that "anchor baby" does have birthright citizenship, to both the US and Mexico. And they can go back with their parents to Mexico. (or wherever)

Do we need to strip everyone of their citizenship to do this?

There's no addendum to this amendment in the works, it's just a repeal. Trump, on your behalf, wants to argue that the 14th Amendment doesn't mean anything at all. And it needs to go.

I guess welcome President Schwarzenegger, 2020?

Mac-7
08-19-2015, 07:00 PM
Sure sure, mac-7, I get your point. the people that crossed illegally, need to go back home. I even agree with sending their children along with them.

I think that "anchor baby" does have birthright citizenship, to both the US and Mexico. And they can go back with their parents to Mexico. (or wherever)

Do we need to strip everyone of their citizenship to do this?

There's no addendum to this amendment in the works, it's just a repeal. Trump, on your behalf, wants to argue that the 14th Amendment doesn't mean anything at all. And it needs to go.

I guess welcome President Schwarzenegger, 2020?

Only liberals trying to gum up the gears are suggesting that we strip citizenship from people who already have it.

But we do want to deny citizenship to future illegal aliens and tourists.

decedent
08-19-2015, 07:01 PM
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment allows us to ignore it. Citizenship isn't a right: it's a privilege and if you don't like it, you can move to Russia.


Conservatives aren't for equal rights under the law,They want special rights for a select few.

We earned it.

whatukno
08-19-2015, 07:02 PM
Only liberals trying to gum up the gears are suggesting that we strip citizenship from people who already have it.

But we do want to deny citizenship to future illegal aliens and tourists.

What do you have against Tourists?

The tourist economy of the us is a multi billion dollar a year industry. Why the hell would you be against that?

Dr. Who
08-19-2015, 07:02 PM
It all depends on how the law is written.

and there are so many ways to write it anything is possible.
I expect that keeping it simple saves a great deal of litigation.

Howey
08-19-2015, 07:03 PM
I know you are a liberal and all, but could you do a better job with constructing a sentence? Can I assume you meant "unconstitutional" rather than "unconditional?" If so, Congress can fix the problem of "anchor babies" per Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Excuse me for the actions of my phone.

Now go back and reread my post. What did you misunderstand?

whatukno
08-19-2015, 07:03 PM
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment allows us to ignore it. Citizenship isn't a right: it's a privilege and if you don't like it, you can move to Russia.



We earned it.

By birthright? How?

Mac-7
08-19-2015, 07:05 PM
I expect that keeping it simple saves a great deal of litigation.

I'm for that.

birddog
08-19-2015, 07:08 PM
Excuse me for the actions of my phone.

Now go back and reread my post. What did you misunderstand?

I never misunderstood anything. I'm an intelligent conservative who is used to liberals stating things in a dumb fashion, and I was just playing with you. :grin:

whatukno
08-19-2015, 07:37 PM
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment allows us to ignore it. Citizenship isn't a right: it's a privilege and if you don't like it, you can move to Russia.



We earned it.

By what measure?

Howey
08-19-2015, 08:15 PM
I never misunderstood anything. I'm an intelligent conservative who is used to liberals stating things in a dumb fashion, and I was just playing with you. :grin:
You can't be that intelligent if you so thoroughly misunderstood a post.

birddog
08-19-2015, 09:41 PM
You can't be that intelligent if you so thoroughly misunderstood a post.

Your post could be interpreted a couple of different ways. Pretend I am not intelligent, and explain how it should be interpreted.

Darmosiel
08-19-2015, 10:11 PM
Clearly Trump does not understand how the Constitution is Amended.

Darmosiel
08-19-2015, 10:19 PM
It all depends on how the law is written.

and there are so many ways to write it anything is possible.

Which part of the law do you take issue with specifically?

http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=014/llsl014.db&recNum=389

decedent
08-19-2015, 10:20 PM
By what measure?

We were here first.

Darmosiel
08-19-2015, 10:22 PM
We were here first.

LMAO

And that's your legal argument? Dude, don't decide to become a Constitutional Lawyer anytime soon.

lolololololol

Redrose
08-19-2015, 10:23 PM
I don't thing a expectant mother sneaking into the USA at 9 months and giving birth should give that baby automatic birthright citizenship. I feel that is an abuse of the birthright rule. There needs to be a residency period of at least one year to prevent those abuses.

The way it stands now, that mother gives birth, the new baby is now an American citizen, now mom is still illegal and pleads with the system not to deport her and her "legal American baby". The bleeding hearts say we cannot separate mother and child, so now mom is allowed to remain and become a citizen "anchor baby" situation. Now mom wants to bring her other children in, and on and on and on.

That part of "birthright" citizenship needs to be changed.


I was born in England. My parents were both American citizens, just there for a visit. I am not a British subject, never was. I was a US citizen at birth because of my parents status.

These mothers from Mexico and Central America are citizens of their country. Any baby born of them ANYWHERE should remain a citizen of the mother's homeland.

Mac-7
08-20-2015, 04:35 AM
Which part of the law do you take issue with specifically?

http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=014/llsl014.db&recNum=389

Section 1 if the Supreme Court rules that illegal alien babies have birthright citizenship.

In spite of those such as professional bloviator Bill O'reilly who say its settled law I don't think it has been tested.

But should he be proven correct then Sec 1 of the 14th amendment should be repealed.

Peter1469
08-20-2015, 08:52 AM
SCOTUS has held that the 14th Amendment citizenship clause applies to all who are born in the US. The writers of that clause clearly stated otherwise. They considered a baby born inside the US to foreigners to have the citizenship of the parents.

This is a case where Mac is correct. The unelected Justices changed the meaning of the 14th Amendment for whatever reason. But it is case law, not the actual Constitution, so we can change it via case law.

There is no historical reason for the US to have birth right citizenship.

Mac-7
08-20-2015, 10:08 AM
SCOTUS has held that the 14th Amendment citizenship clause applies to all who are born in the US. The writers of that clause clearly stated otherwise. They considered a baby born inside the US to foreigners to have the citizenship of the parents.

This is a case where Mac is correct. The unelected Justices changed the meaning of the 14th Amendment for whatever reason. But it is case law, not the actual Constitution, so we can change it via case law.

There is no historical reason for the US to have birth right citizenship.

I think one judge mentioned it in passing in 1985.

The US was trying to deport a couple of Mexicans and the case really had nothing to do with their child.

Maybe that counts as settled law I don't know.

But the court has never really dealt with the issue specifically.

What should happen is congress passes a new immigration law that denies anchor babies citizenship and let La Raza or the ACLU challenge it and see what happens.

Tahuyaman
08-20-2015, 01:10 PM
People who are citizens today would not lose it by repealing the 14th amendment.


Also, the 14th amandment does not give citizenship to children born in the United States to foreigners. If that was the case, every diplomat's child born here is a citizen of the US. That is obviously not the case.

Tahuyaman
08-20-2015, 01:31 PM
SCOTUS has held that the 14th Amendment citizenship clause applies to all who are born in the US. The writers of that clause clearly stated otherwise. They considered a baby born inside the US to foreigners to have the citizenship of the parents.

You are 100% correct.

Tahuyaman
08-20-2015, 01:42 PM
Odd, going against the 14th Amendment?

No, it's abiding by the 14th amandment. I am not surprised that a liberal can't tell the difference.

Mac-7
08-20-2015, 01:44 PM
Also, the 14th amandment does not give citizenship to children born in the United States to foreigners. If that was the case, every diplomat's child born here is a citizen of the US. That is obviously not the case.

Practically speaking the government has been conferring citizenship on anchor babies.

If congress passes a law specifically denying citizenship to illegal alien children it would not be retroactive.

Tahuyaman
08-20-2015, 02:03 PM
Practically speaking the government has been conferring citizenship on anchor babies.


Yes they have, but it is not a constitutional requirement, nor can the practice be supported by citing the constitution.

If they pass legislation which outlaws the practice, it can not be overturned by citing constitutional principles.

Mac-7
08-20-2015, 02:11 PM
Yes they have, but it is not a constitutional requirement,

nor can the practice be supported by citing the constitution.



But they do support birthright citizenship for illegal aliens by citing the 14th amendment.

Thats why I support a law specifically denying citizenship.

Tahuyaman
08-20-2015, 02:20 PM
But they do support birthright citizenship for illegal aliens by citing the 14th amendment.

But they need to make it contain words which are not there.

When an elected official develops the spine to create legislation banning the practice, that legislation will not fail based on a supposed constitutional violation.

exotix
08-20-2015, 02:33 PM
No, it's abiding by the 14th amandment. I am not surprised that a liberal can't tell the difference.
Practically speaking the government has been conferring citizenship on anchor babies.


If congress passes a law specifically denying citizenship to illegal alien children it would not be retroactive.
Yes they have, but it is not a constitutional requirement, nor can the practice be supported by citing the constitution.


If they pass legislation which outlaws the practice, it can not be overturned by citing constitutional principles.

But they do support birthright citizenship for illegal aliens by citing the 14th amendment.


Thats why I support a law specifically denying citizenship.

But they need to make it contain words which are not there.


When an elected official develops the spine to create legislation banning the practice, that legislation will not fail based on a supposed constitutional violation.
Educate yourself on the origins of the 14th Amendment ... and how many loons actually tried to go up against it ... in fact lemme help you out ...


'There is no Lawyer in America that doesn't Understand the 14th Amendment and who would agree with Trump & Walker'

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word

http://i61.tinypic.com/33jqsty.png

Tahuyaman
08-20-2015, 02:50 PM
Educate yourself on the origins of the 14th Amendment .



You really should consider taking your own advice.

exotix
08-20-2015, 03:06 PM
You really should consider taking your own advice.I did ...



'The First challenge to the 14th Amendment came from 14 year old girl in an inheritance Case ... and oddly, in the case of Sarasota Springs Water '

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word

http://i57.tinypic.com/243lz05.png

http://i62.tinypic.com/2mmze5v.png

Howey
08-20-2015, 03:34 PM
SCOTUS has held that the 14th Amendment citizenship clause applies to all who are born in the US. The writers of that clause clearly stated otherwise. They considered a baby born inside the US to foreigners to have the citizenship of the parents.

This is a case where Mac is correct. The unelected Justices changed the meaning of the 14th Amendment for whatever reason. But it is case law, not the actual Constitution, so we can change it via case law.

There is no historical reason for the US to have birth right citizenship.

Is this one of those strange posts where you're referring to some obscure letter written by Jefferson years before the Constitution was written that means diddly squat?

Like you like to say, link or lie.

exotix
08-20-2015, 03:46 PM
Is this one of those strange posts where you're referring to some obscure letter written by Jefferson years before the Constitution was written that's means diddly squat?

Like you like to say, link or lie.He probably got his law degree at the Univ. of American Samoa ... http://s8.tinypic.com/6fxcli_th.jpg ... that's why he doesn't know the common law of the colonies


http://i58.tinypic.com/znqvpu.png

Tahuyaman
08-20-2015, 03:49 PM
Exo is way out there. I mean way out there on a limb.

exotix
08-20-2015, 03:50 PM
Exo is way out there. I mean way out there on a limb.http://s8.tinypic.com/6fxcli_th.jpg


http://i61.tinypic.com/8wliit.gif

Tahuyaman
08-20-2015, 04:22 PM
Your baby pics aren't going to make you look any better here.

Mac-7
08-20-2015, 09:02 PM
Your baby pics aren't going to make you look any better here.

Liberals post silly pictures when they run out of things to say.

Tahuyaman
08-20-2015, 09:16 PM
Liberals post silly pictures when they run out of things to say.

They post silly things in general. Exo has taken to the next level of complete idiocy though.

exotix
08-20-2015, 09:52 PM
Liberals post silly pictures when they run out of things to say.

They post silly things in general. Exo has taken to the next level of complete idiocy though.I thought it more appropriate than ... LOL

http://i1263.photobucket.com/albums/ii633/TallyBean18/GIF/sloth-yawn-cute.gif