Talk of The Villages Florida

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)
-   The Villages, Florida, Political talk (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-political-talk-88/)
-   -   Citizens or Not? (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-political-talk-88/citizens-not-159882/)

Guest 08-21-2015 01:37 PM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1101720)
The supreme court could do it without an amendment.

No, they could not. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to take out an amendment.

Even IF they could, the current Court is a liberal sided Court. Probably the only justice that would vote in favor of removing the amendment is Clarence Thomas - and he is a loser.

Guest 08-21-2015 01:39 PM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1102820)
No, they could not. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to take out an amendment.

Even IF they could, the current Court is a liberal sided Court. Probably the only justice that would vote in favor of removing the amendment is Clarence Thomas - and he is a loser.

RACIST remark!! :police:

Guest 08-21-2015 02:07 PM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1102822)
RACIST remark!! :police:

Just a loser that ......happens to be black!

Guest 08-21-2015 02:30 PM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1102836)
Just a loser that ......happens to be black!

Ahh, I get it! It's OK, since you are a liberal, right? Liberals can't be racist. Not even when they insist on gov funding of Planned Parenthood, even though they killed more black babies last year than were born. Got it.

Sorry, I am guilty of diverting this time. Couldn't resist it. :D

Guest 08-21-2015 10:55 PM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1102852)
Ahh, I get it! It's OK, since you are a liberal, right? Liberals can't be racist. Not even when they insist on gov funding of Planned Parenthood, even though they killed more black babies last year than were born. Got it.

Sorry, I am guilty of diverting this time. Couldn't resist it. :D

Who said you could come out of your racist troll hole? Get back underground.

It is a mother's choice to choose an abortion or not. The mother's choice is hers alone and is not up to a legislative body.

Guest 08-22-2015 04:39 AM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1101469)
How does Trump's plan help with the Hispanic vote? Most experts say in order for the GOP to win in 2016, they must get 40% of that vote. George Bush got 40%, McCain got 30% and Romney got 25%. Anyone see a pattern developing here?

Dear Guest: The lack of Hispanic vote for Romney ( 25-27% have been quoted) did not sink him. What did was 4% white Republican voters who refused to vote. We can thank the Republican Establishment for that result.

Personal Best Regards

Guest 08-22-2015 04:50 AM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1101476)
Since Trump considers President Obama to be an "illegal" since he was not born in the USA, would his immigration plan also require the President to leave the country?

Dear Guest: Be careful now progressive have taken "illegal alien" to be a trigger warning micro aggressive term along with anchor baby

People who spend years working to enter this country through proper channels should be incensed over this issue. And every time I hear Bush say it is an act of love it tells me emotion precedes intellect.

Mexico is now requiring Americans to present passports at the border so they know who is entering their country.....Go figure!

As to: Obama is his name and "illegality" is his game............"and I side with the majority worse president ever


Personal Best Regards

Guest 08-22-2015 05:21 AM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1103031)
Who said you could come out of your racist troll hole? Get back underground.

It is a mother's choice to choose an abortion or not. The mother's choice is hers alone and is not up to a legislative body.

You didn't answer the question, but I think by that you have proven that you are not from here and indeed are a troll.

I never argued about the legality of abortion. Just because something is legal doesn't make it morally right. That just makes it statutorily correct.

Guest 08-22-2015 05:47 AM

The term "Illegal Alien" is NOT a slur. It's a correct term that upsets the group that is trying to convince us that squatting on American land indicates residence/citizenship. They are criminals, thus the term "Illegal" and belonging to a foreign country so "alien." There is no slur in using a totally correct term. It would only be a slur if in fact, these foreign nationals came our country legally, in which case they would be legal aliens or in some cases if they were staying, then they would be immigrants. Another term would be "illegal immigrants" which would also be a proper term. Using a term such as "undocumented immigrant" is a misnomer when using it to describe a person that enters our country illegally. That term implies that person may or may not have come here legally but has yet to obtain proper residency paperwork.

So, the PC crowd can kiss my @** because if they don't understand the proper meaning of a term, then perhaps they need to go back to grade school.

We are a country of laws. Just because we have those that believe they are above the law (ie, the Clintons) does not change that fact. Without laws we become an anarchy. We have proper immigration laws. There is no statute of limitations on illegally entering our country. If a child is born in our country from an illegal alien, it is not our fault but the fault of the illegal parent. The child may stay, but the parent must leave. Sorry, we have laws. Same thing happens when a parent (U.S. citizen) breaks a law in our country. They go to jail and leave the child behind. I didn't cause them to break the law.

I believe that the Constitution was not written specifically for these cases. But, it was interpreted that way by the high and mighty Supremes, therefore law. If we want a different process, then we simply add a small amendment that states that children of illegals are not given citizenship by birth. Simple.

Guest 08-22-2015 05:59 AM

Wouldn't the legal hispanic population be going along with Trump on this as it's shining a bad light on the legal hispanic voters?

Guest 08-22-2015 06:19 AM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1103050)
Wouldn't the legal hispanic population be going along with Trump on this as it's shining a bad light on the legal hispanic voters?

How do you know that they aren't going along with him on this? The ones that I know that stood in line for their right to enter the U.S. and then studied for their citizenship paperwork, agree with him.

Trump is just sounding off on issues that many of us would like addressed. I don't necessarily like him as a candidate and won't vote for him in the primary. But, if he is nominated, I will vote for him in the general. Who else would I vote for? Hilary, the criminal or Bernie the socialist? I don't think so. If Biden doesn't enter the fray, then the Dems have nothing to offer as an alternative.

Guest 08-22-2015 07:22 AM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1103050)
Wouldn't the legal hispanic population be going along with Trump on this as it's shining a bad light on the legal hispanic voters?

You would think that those who are able to vote would be saying "FINALLY" to what Trump is saying as they worked to become a citizen,

Most of the noise you here is from "professionals", i.e.. groups and activists.

Guest 08-22-2015 07:42 AM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1103069)
You would think that those who are able to vote would be saying "FINALLY" to what Trump is saying as they worked to become a citizen,

Most of the noise you here is from "professionals", i.e.. groups and activists.

:thumbup:

Guest 08-22-2015 08:01 AM

Here is Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment:

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.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

I don't think it needs to be repealed; it needs to be applied.

And subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Are illegal immigrants subject to US law? Not if they're here illegally. They are squatters.

A bit of history:

<snip>The Amendment was intended to give citizenship to the African-American former slaves and not to Indians. Government agencies (the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Department of the Interior), and the courts (state, federal, and, ultimately, the Supreme Court) consistently held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not confer citizenship on Indians. <snip>

"http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/617"

Sounds bizarre. The courts reasoning, at the time, was that Native Americans were tribal citizens, not American citizens. They weren't granted citizenship en masse until 1940.

Guest 08-22-2015 09:36 AM

Quote:

Posted by Guest (Post 1103094)
Here is Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment:

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.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

I don't think it needs to be repealed; it needs to be applied.

And subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Are illegal immigrants subject to US law? Not if they're here illegally. They are squatters.

A bit of history:

<snip>The Amendment was intended to give citizenship to the African-American former slaves and not to Indians. Government agencies (the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Department of the Interior), and the courts (state, federal, and, ultimately, the Supreme Court) consistently held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not confer citizenship on Indians. <snip>

"http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/617"

Sounds bizarre. The courts reasoning, at the time, was that Native Americans were tribal citizens, not American citizens. They weren't granted citizenship en masse until 1940.

Good post :thumbup:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:04 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.