Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(12-13-2024, 04:57 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-13-2024, 02:40 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Most Trump supporters aren't deplorable.  But you are.

You're known by your enemies, so I'm doing quite well TYVM.

Wrong and wrong. But you get an A for consistency!

---

(12-13-2024, 05:05 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]I'm only deplorable to the people that deserve it..

You're just spiteful.  That's different.  You insult people to make your point.  FSG wants to kill babies to make his point. I'd take you over him any day.

(12-13-2024, 10:35 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-13-2024, 04:57 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]You're known by your enemies, so I'm doing quite well TYVM.

Wrong and wrong. But you get an A for consistency!

---

(12-13-2024, 05:05 PM)WingerDinger Wrote: [ -> ]I'm only deplorable to the people that deserve it..

You're just spiteful.  That's different.  You insult people to make your point.  FSG wants to kill babies to make his point. I'd take you over him any day.

I dont want to kill babies, just abort illegal fetuses before they become anchor babies. Or amend the Constitution to outright say the children of 2 non-citizens born in America don't automatically become American citizens at birth. Either is ok but I'd prefer the latter. The former is the hammer for those who don't leave on their own. It's time to end easy access to our Country.

(12-13-2024, 07:30 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-13-2024, 12:51 PM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ]Born here illegally? It is a crime to be born?

What about the the ones who come here legally on a visa, and give birth while here? You know that about 40-50% of illegal immigrants come here legally and just overstay their visa, right?

So we're now talking about deporting U.S. citizens because of what their parents did.

And what if they breed faster than we can deport them? Should we create a final solution for that?

Slippery slope.

Guess what, that still makes them illegal now, doesn’t matter how they go here. And I seriously doubt that statistic is accurate anymore (if ever) after Joe opened the border wide [BLEEP] open.

A lot of talk about this 14th amendment.  How it makes children of illegals citizens. People entering illegally, overstaying visas etc. I thought I would first read the actual portion that applies.See below

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

First the easy part. People entering illegally, visas or green cards are not naturalized so deportation is an acceptable cure. 

The born portion is where it gets messy. It could be argued that the kids are minors. Their parents have responsibility for them, they are subject to the jurisdiction of their parents. A minor, cannot enter into contracts or take on other responsibilities until reaching the age of majority. This would mean they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Therefore are deported with the parents.

Just a thought...

ps Meet the Press (CBS) edited the text leaving out the and subject to the jurisdiction part. Wonder why?

(12-13-2024, 11:17 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-13-2024, 07:30 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ]Guess what, that still makes them illegal now, doesn’t matter how they go here. And I seriously doubt that statistic is accurate anymore (if ever) after Joe opened the border wide [BLEEP] open.

A lot of talk about this 14th amendment.  How it makes children of illegals citizens. People entering illegally, overstaying visas etc. I thought I would first read the actual portion that applies.See below

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

First the easy part. People entering illegally, visas or green cards are not naturalized so deportation is an acceptable cure. 

The born portion is where it gets messy. It could be argued that the kids are minors. Their parents have responsibility for them, they are subject to the jurisdiction of their parents. A minor, cannot enter into contracts or take on other responsibilities until reaching the age of majority. This would mean they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Therefore are deported with the parents.

Just a thought...

ps Meet the Press (CBS) edited the text leaving out the and subject to the jurisdiction part. Wonder why?

The people who wrote that amendment in the 1860s left behind lots of notes about what "subject to jurisdiction" meant.  The clause was only meant to exlcude children of diplomats or other representatives of foreign armies.

You could try to get the Supreme Court to change definitions of words, but usually that the left's thing, not the right.

(12-14-2024, 12:31 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-13-2024, 11:17 PM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]A lot of talk about this 14th amendment.  How it makes children of illegals citizens. People entering illegally, overstaying visas etc. I thought I would first read the actual portion that applies.See below

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

First the easy part. People entering illegally, visas or green cards are not naturalized so deportation is an acceptable cure. 

The born portion is where it gets messy. It could be argued that the kids are minors. Their parents have responsibility for them, they are subject to the jurisdiction of their parents. A minor, cannot enter into contracts or take on other responsibilities until reaching the age of majority. This would mean they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Therefore are deported with the parents.

Just a thought...

ps Meet the Press (CBS) edited the text leaving out the and subject to the jurisdiction part. Wonder why?

The people who wrote that amendment in the 1860s left behind lots of notes about what "subject to jurisdiction" meant.  The clause was only meant to exlcude children of diplomats or other representatives of foreign armies.

You could try to get the Supreme Court to change definitions of words, but usually that the left's thing, not the right.

Cool where may one find those notes? Also, since the writers left copious notes how did they handle the off spring of people here illegally? Did they not cover those? Do we need to do so now?

(12-13-2024, 01:14 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-13-2024, 12:51 PM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ]Born here illegally? It is a crime to be born?

What about the the ones who come here legally on a visa, and give birth while here? You know that about 40-50% of illegal immigrants come here legally and just overstay their visa, right?

So we're now talking about deporting U.S. citizens because of what their parents did.

And what if they breed faster than we can deport them? Should we create a final solution for that?

Slippery slope.

That's why the mandatory abortions for illegals is a key plank in my plan to fix America. Can't be Anchor Babies if there's no babies.

Mandatory abortions would make the nazis proud.

(12-14-2024, 06:35 AM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-13-2024, 01:14 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]That's why the mandatory abortions for illegals is a key plank in my plan to fix America. Can't be Anchor Babies if there's no babies.

Mandatory abortions would make the nazis proud.

DOOFwin's Law seems all you have left. Not that you had anything to start with, it was a short trip to the bottom for you.

(12-14-2024, 08:09 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-14-2024, 06:35 AM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ]Mandatory abortions would make the nazis proud.

DOOFwin's Law seems all you have left. Not that you had anything to start with, it was a short trip to the bottom for you.

Yea you presented a very intelligent idea of strong walls lol.

Idiotic take to say the least. Walls dont stop people coming with visas and just staying over. Also pro murder is in your blood. Nazis love that.

You are so far off disconnected from reality that it is really sad and pathetic.

(12-14-2024, 08:09 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-14-2024, 06:35 AM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ]Mandatory abortions would make the nazis proud.

DOOFwin's Law seems all you have left. Not that you had anything to start with, it was a short trip to the bottom for you.

I always pictured bouncing along the bottom as the it inclined deeper.

(12-14-2024, 12:33 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-14-2024, 12:31 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The people who wrote that amendment in the 1860s left behind lots of notes about what "subject to jurisdiction" meant.  The clause was only meant to exlcude children of diplomats or other representatives of foreign armies.

You could try to get the Supreme Court to change definitions of words, but usually that the left's thing, not the right.

Cool where may one find those notes? Also, since the writers left copious notes how did they handle the off spring of people here illegally? Did they not cover those? Do we need to do so now?

There were no immigration controls for most of the 1800s, other than the prohibition on slave transport that took effect in 1808.  All immigrants were legal until 1888.

(12-14-2024, 10:19 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-14-2024, 12:33 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]Cool where may one find those notes? Also, since the writers left copious notes how did they handle the off spring of people here illegally? Did they not cover those? Do we need to do so now?

There were no immigration controls for most of the 1800s, other than the prohibition on slave transport that took effect in 1808.  All immigrants were legal until 1888.

Ok, so that issue is not addressed by the 14th at all. I can understand that as no one during that time would ever imagine a President and political party allowing a virtual invasion of our country.

(12-14-2024, 10:46 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-14-2024, 10:19 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]There were no immigration controls for most of the 1800s, other than the prohibition on slave transport that took effect in 1808.  All immigrants were legal until 1888.

Ok, so that issue is not addressed by the 14th at all. I can understand that as no one during that time would ever imagine a President and political party allowing a virtual invasion of our country.

The Enforcement clause of the 14th gives Congress some ability to flesh out what "subject to the jurisdiction" means in practical terms. When they started writing immigration control laws, twenty years later, they could have said violators would no longer be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.  They could have cited those parts of the 14th amendment to make things clear. They did not do so, not in 1888, not in any subsequent immigration control act.  Why do you suppose that is?

(12-14-2024, 11:01 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-14-2024, 10:46 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]Ok, so that issue is not addressed by the 14th at all. I can understand that as no one during that time would ever imagine a President and political party allowing a virtual invasion of our country.

The Enforcement clause of the 14th gives Congress some ability to flesh out what "subject to the jurisdiction" means in practical terms. When they started writing immigration control laws, twenty years later, they could have said violators would no longer be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.  They could have cited those parts of the 14th amendment to make things clear. They did not do so, not in 1888, not in any subsequent immigration control act.  Why do you suppose that is?

They had no idea the bolded would occur, it was inconceivable to them or they would have closed a loophole.  Seems we need to have congress define that phase.

(12-14-2024, 11:07 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-14-2024, 11:01 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]The Enforcement clause of the 14th gives Congress some ability to flesh out what "subject to the jurisdiction" means in practical terms. When they started writing immigration control laws, twenty years later, they could have said violators would no longer be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.  They could have cited those parts of the 14th amendment to make things clear. They did not do so, not in 1888, not in any subsequent immigration control act.  Why do you suppose that is?

They had no idea the bolded would occur, it was inconceivable to them or they would have closed a loophole.  Seems we need to have congress define that phase.

Immigration control acts had major updates in the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s. Those Congresses didn't know about this "virtual invasion"?

NYC Mayor Adams Open to Reopening Rikers Island ICE Office

New York City Mayor Eric Adams has told incoming border czar Tom Homan he wants to reopen the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office on Rikers Island, the New York Post reported on Friday.

On Thursday, Adams met with Homan and discussed his willingness to cooperate with the administration of President-elect Donald Trump to curb the flow of illegal immigrants.

"I truly believe sitting down with him, I saw the cop come out of him," Homan told the outlet. "I think he really wants to help with public safety threats, and he really wants to help find these children."

https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/eric-a...6uagTLC4kg

(12-14-2024, 08:25 AM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-14-2024, 08:09 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]DOOFwin's Law seems all you have left. Not that you had anything to start with, it was a short trip to the bottom for you.

Yea you presented a very intelligent idea of strong walls lol.

Idiotic take to say the least. Walls dont stop people coming with visas and just staying over. Also pro murder is in your blood. Nazis love that.

You are so far off disconnected from reality that it is really sad and pathetic.

Nazis were anti-abortion you doorknob.

(12-14-2024, 01:02 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-14-2024, 08:25 AM)TDOSS Wrote: [ -> ]Yea you presented a very intelligent idea of strong walls lol.

Idiotic take to say the least. Walls dont stop people coming with visas and just staying over. Also pro murder is in your blood. Nazis love that.

You are so far off disconnected from reality that it is really sad and pathetic.

Nazis were anti-abortion you doorknob.

Not for Jews and Slavs they weren't.

(12-14-2024, 04:14 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-14-2024, 01:02 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Nazis were anti-abortion you doorknob.

Not for Jews and Slavs they weren't.

Yes, they actually were until they started that Solution stiff. They permitted it on a case by case but overall it was not allowed.

(12-14-2024, 11:30 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-14-2024, 11:07 AM)Jag149 Wrote: [ -> ]They had no idea the bolded would occur, it was inconceivable to them or they would have closed a loophole.  Seems we need to have congress define that phase.

Immigration control acts had major updates in the 1920s, 1960s, and 1980s. Those Congresses didn't know about this "virtual invasion"?

Nope, This one world poop had not begun during those times. Besides we are talking Wilson, Eisenhower and Regan time periods. Those Presidents did their duty and protected our borders.