Donald Trump running for president
- Thread starter LiftWithDonuts
- Start date
Dustin07
Legend
watching it right now. drill baby drill, declare cartels terrorist organizations, repeal green new deal, take back panama canal, it's going to be a wild 4 years. here comes the next fake pandemic.
sammpedd88
Well-known member
I can’t wait to see the executive orders he signs today. I’ve read somewhere it was around 200. Coming out the gate hard!
Renew1
Legend
I don't see them overturning that. (1868)
"Birthright citizenship is guaranteed to most people born within U.S. territory (other than American Samoa) by the first part of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (adopted July 9, 1868), which states:
"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.""
ax1
Legend
Or you can loophole it and attack the anchor baby scheme, make it so the baby gets citizenship but that does not provide the parents/family citizenship or green card rights.
Smont
Legend
This one Is sketchy. What if I knock up some Columbian chick that's here illegally. They gonna take my kid away from me? I can see if both parents are illegally here then the child born here shouldn't be a citizen. But do we pull a 16 year old kid that's lived here for 16 years out of school and send them to another country? I got kids I coach that are very likely kids of illegal parents and these kids have been here, in school, in sports ect since the day they were born.
I'm not a Democrat or republican. My views side waaaaay more with trumps agenda and I like a lot of his ideas, we got big problems with immigration. But there's gotta be a line somewhere on it.
BamBam54
Well-known member
The birthright citizenship argument is about totally illegally parents (neither a US citizen) who have a baby on US soil. If two columbians have a baby here.... is that baby Columbian or American??
If a Chinese company is hosting a baby tourism business that flies pregnant women into America to have birth here and gain instant forever citizenship.... is that what the Constitution meant??
The clause includes the line "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" so it's likely not ANY/EVERY baby born on US soil. The Supreme Court has to rule on what was actually meant by this jurisdiction line. Illegals seems to be outside of that scope, if you ask me.
If a Taliban sleeper cell here had a baby on US soil, does that baby become a US citizen forever?
If all else fails, and the illegal criminal baby becomes a constitutional US citizen, then the baby can stay but the illegal parents need to get the F out.
We are $36 trillion in debt...
The system isn't broken. We have immigration laws. The government that is supposed to enforce those laws is broken!
If a Chinese company is hosting a baby tourism business that flies pregnant women into America to have birth here and gain instant forever citizenship.... is that what the Constitution meant??
The clause includes the line "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" so it's likely not ANY/EVERY baby born on US soil. The Supreme Court has to rule on what was actually meant by this jurisdiction line. Illegals seems to be outside of that scope, if you ask me.
If a Taliban sleeper cell here had a baby on US soil, does that baby become a US citizen forever?
If all else fails, and the illegal criminal baby becomes a constitutional US citizen, then the baby can stay but the illegal parents need to get the F out.
We are $36 trillion in debt...
The system isn't broken. We have immigration laws. The government that is supposed to enforce those laws is broken!
xR1pp3Rx
Legend
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1868, included birthright citizenship primarily to address several key issues of the post-Civil War period:
In essence, the inclusion of birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment was both a moral imperative to recognize the humanity and rights of all born on U.S. soil and a strategic legal move to ensure those rights were enshrined in the highest law of the land, preventing future legislative or judicial backsliding.
Dred Scott case details
Civil Rights Act of 1866
- Overturning Dred Scott v. Sandford: Before the Civil War, the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) had declared that African Americans, whether free or slave, could not be U.S. citizens. The 14th Amendment aimed to explicitly reverse this ruling, ensuring that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to its jurisdiction, were citizens. This was a direct response to the need to recognize former slaves and their descendants as citizens.
- Ensuring Civil Rights for Freed Slaves: Post-Civil War, one of the primary concerns was to secure civil rights for the newly emancipated African Americans. By establishing that anyone born in the U.S. was a citizen, the amendment provided a constitutional basis for protecting these individuals from discrimination and ensuring they had equal protection under the law.
- Clarifying Citizenship: Prior to the amendment, citizenship was somewhat ambiguous, especially concerning African Americans and Native Americans. The amendment clarified who was a citizen, reducing the ambiguity that could lead to discriminatory practices. It stated, "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."
- National Unity: After the Civil War, there was a need to unify the nation under one set of laws regarding citizenship. Birthright citizenship helped in creating a national identity that was not limited by race or previous conditions of servitude, promoting a sense of national cohesion.
- Protecting Against State Discrimination: The amendment was also a response to Southern states' actions to limit rights through Black Codes and other discriminatory legislation. By nationalizing citizenship, the amendment aimed to prevent states from denying citizenship rights based on race or former status of slavery.
- Legal and Political Strategy: The inclusion of birthright citizenship was part of a broader strategy by Radical Republicans in Congress to ensure the civil rights of African Americans were legally protected. They wanted to cement these rights into the Constitution to prevent future Congresses or state governments from undoing the gains made by the Reconstruction Acts.
In essence, the inclusion of birthright citizenship in the 14th Amendment was both a moral imperative to recognize the humanity and rights of all born on U.S. soil and a strategic legal move to ensure those rights were enshrined in the highest law of the land, preventing future legislative or judicial backsliding.
Dred Scott case details
Civil Rights Act of 1866
baldwanus
Well-known member
Bondi - 'Hey Bobby. So sorry to hear about that 11 year sentence. Got any fun information about your old colleagues? Maybe we get you outta there a little sooner...'
Menendez - 'Don't Epstein me and we can chat'
It would be truly hilarious if they offer him some sort of deal to spill some dirt on his old pals. I'm sure he's got some fun stories, and a bit of a chip on his shoulder wondering why he got shafted and none of them did.
Menendez - 'Don't Epstein me and we can chat'
It would be truly hilarious if they offer him some sort of deal to spill some dirt on his old pals. I'm sure he's got some fun stories, and a bit of a chip on his shoulder wondering why he got shafted and none of them did.
Anabolic66
Member
There is nothing wrong being an old-school Dem. But yes, they lost their minds and flew the coop.
And youre not alone, the red-wave just destroyed Demturdia!
BamBam54
Well-known member
I like this Community Notes feature which can quickly verify if the story is true and a link to prove it isn't...
Sounds like this trans Jo Ellis was not the pilot (but doesn't settle who the pilot actually was or why the real pilot messed up so badly)
xR1pp3Rx
Legend
INXS - DEVIL INSIDE
INXS - DEVIL INSIDE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL: Follow me on Truth Social @AAKROYD Follow me on X @Akroydvideos If you Enjoy My videos, and would like to SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL
Or if you
rumble.com
ax1
Legend
BamBam54
Well-known member
Yup. The original Reagan "Star Wars" dream. But to date, it's never worked and as proof we still totally rely on anti-missile missiles like Patriot and THAAD.
HOWEVER - new tests show a navy destroyer using a powerful laser to hit drones. And mobile military vehicles are testing less powerful lasers for short range drone defense in US, UK, and Israel.
We are getting closer... but NOTHING like a functional space based mega laser yet.
Tunaking14
Well-known member
If they are talking about it then it's probably closer than you think. We have plenty of technology that the public isn't aware of.
ax1
Legend
Never worked based off "official" information, we are usually 25 to 50 years ahead in tech. That Reagon Star Wars stuff is like having a rotary phone in your pocket in the present day.
Dustin07
Legend
There are lies, damn lies, and then there are politicians. they're all scum and they don't even mind waffling a week later.
Smont
Legend
Were always like 20 years behind tech. When I was a kid there was a Korean kid who's dad worked for Sony on PlayStation, I don't know exactly what he did but I remember when the Madden games started getting realistic in the early 2000's (or at least what seemed realistic back then) and his dad said they could have made that in the 80's and he said all tech is like that. He said nothing becomes available to the public until it's been already outdated for 20 years lol. If they do that with video games and regular technology imagine what they do with government technology
ax1
Legend
Interesting times for sure!
ax1
Legend
sammpedd88
Well-known member
It’s time for McConnell to check into the nursing home and give up politics. This is insane. Can’t support your own party. He’s the GOP version of Biden.