Trump Now Within 6 Points Of Clinton In National Election - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Robbie · 08-19-2015, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Politicians make shitty decisions all day long with other peoples lives and money and rarely suffer the consequences for those decisions. A business person has to pay the consequences for every single decision he makes.

Exactly. The bureaucrats are doing deficit spending. Something that no other entity CAN do. They simply print more money. Total bullshit.

Also they themselves are never affected by the experiments they perform on the economy and society in general. They will forever be behind a wall of protection that makes them immune to the economic woes (unless they get booted out of office).

Health care for a bureaucrat? No problem!
Job security? No problem for the millions of them that work for the govt. and are not elected.
Pay cuts? NEVER.
Pay raises? Hell yes.
Does the money ever run out? Nope.
Does the budget ever actually go down. Nope.

That is what is wrong with this country. The people making the decisions have no accountability other than the voter taking them out.
And the voters (like crockett) have been conditioned to "team sports" politics and just keep voting for their "team" over and over and over.

That is why Trump is a breath of fresh air to the whole process. He's a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. The only guy with the money to NOT accept campaign contributions and NOT be beholden to anybody.

Robbie · 08-19-2015, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mineistaken

neck and neck is not 6 points

I think the margin of error is 4 points. So yeah, it's pretty damn close. And getting closer every day.

If this continues he will be leading by next month.

mineistaken · 08-19-2015, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

I think the margin of error is 4 points. So yeah, it's pretty damn close. And getting closer every day.

If this continues he will be leading by next month.

I wish, man. But there is 47 percenters class which is only growing...

crockett · 08-19-2015, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mineistaken

plus neck and neck is much better than lagging by 6 points

Yes, but keep in mind Sanders is also eating into Hillary's lead. The simple fact is Hillary is not a good candidate.

Look at Sanders for example.. He is out there in the trenches and talking to the people. trump and Hillary are talking at the people.

Sanders is pulling thousands of people everytime he speaks.. No other candidate, not even Trump is doing that. Sanders knows how to interact with people as a normal person and is showing himself to be a good candidate. People are reacting to him very positively.

With both Trump and Hillary, none of their press is really about real issues, it's all about drama.. Eventually the drama will wear thin and people will want to hear about the issues..

dyna mo · 08-19-2015, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Yes, but keep in mind Sanders is also eating into Hillary's lead. The simple fact is Hillary is not a good candidate.

Look at Sanders for example.. He is out there in the trenches and talking to the people. trump and Hillary are talking at the people.

Sanders is pulling thousands of people everytime he speaks.. No other candidate, not even Trump is doing that. Sanders knows how to interact with people as a normal person and is showing himself to be a good candidate. People are reacting to him very positively.

With both Trump and Hillary, none of their press is really about real issues, it's all about drama.. Eventually the drama will wear thin and people will want to hear about the issues..

tons of media coverage on hillary's plan for solar, for her meeting with #blacklivesmatter, and several other free passes the media gives her.

she is a media darling crockett. although that is starting to unravel, and guess who's doing the unraveling, Hillary. she lost control in that email press conference yesterday, the shrug heard around the world. finally, we will be seeing the media convene on her and grill her on the issues and we will watch the explosion. then she'll come up with some excuse to exit the race.

Robbie · 08-19-2015, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mineistaken

I wish, man. But there is 47 percenters class which is only growing...

They are growing because of what govt. is doing to them.

I think a guy like Trump appeals to many of them too. I guess it would be a case of how many of those "47 percenters" really want to be part of that group and how many want to move UP in the world and stop getting handouts?

My guess is the majority of them would like to have a "hand up and not a hand out" as I've heard said before.

The bottom line is going to be...will people finally say enough is enough of what the bureaucrats have done and be willing to try something new in the modern era?

That would ~gasp~ be rather progressive don't you think?

TCLGirls · 08-19-2015, 02:11 PM

So now Trump is saying certain people born in the United States are not real US citizens? Reminds me of the time someone said Jews living in Germany were not real German citizens.

dyna mo · 08-19-2015, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

So now Trump is saying certain people born in the United States are not real US citizens? Reminds me of the time someone said Jews living in Germany were not real German citizens.

making a nazi comparison is a telltale sign you're losing the argument.

Reductio ad Hitlerum

Robbie · 08-19-2015, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

So now Trump is saying certain people born in the United States are not real US citizens? Reminds me of the time someone said Jews living in Germany were not real German citizens.

Nope, he never said anything like what Nazi's said about Jews.

You are really grasping at straws now.

And by the way...I heard on CBS radio news today that a respected constitutional lawyer has come out and said Trump is correct about that issue.

He said that automatic citizenship would only apply it the parents are under the "Jurisdiction of the United States"...which illegal immigrants are not.

To me it's not even an issue about citizenship.

To me it goes like this: The parents are illegal. They need to be deported. Their child is a minor and can't live on his own. He leaves with the parents. He has U.S. citizenship and when he turns 18 he can return if he chooses.

Just like if I had a kid and moved to Mexico afterwards. My kid is a U.S. citizen. But my kid can't run away from home and go to the U.S. as a minor.

This is just common sense.

mineistaken · 08-19-2015, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

So now Trump is saying certain people born in the United States are not real US citizens? Reminds me of the time someone said Jews living in Germany were not real German citizens.

Completely different situations. I did not look into both but I will do a guess which is probably correct:

Jews had German citizenship. So claiming otherwise was of course not logical.

Trump is probably talking about the kids born to NON citizens.

Am I correct?

If so - completely different things and another failed libtard attempt to twist things...

Ps: and that even IF he said something like that, because, as we know, leftards likes to twist things, it is mostly what they do in discussions like that.

TCLGirls · 08-19-2015, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Nope, he never said anything like what Nazi's said about Jews.

You are really grasping at straws now.

And by the way...I heard on CBS radio news today that a respected constitutional lawyer has come out and said Trump is correct about that issue.

He said that automatic citizenship would only apply it the parents are under the "Jurisdiction of the United States"...which illegal immigrants are not.

To me it's not even an issue about citizenship.

To me it goes like this: The parents are illegal. They need to be deported. Their child is a minor and can't live on his own. He leaves with the parents. He has U.S. citizenship and when he turns 18 he can return if he chooses.

Just like if I had a kid and moved to Mexico afterwards. My kid is a U.S. citizen. But my kid can't run away from home and go to the U.S. as a minor.

This is just common sense.

Just think about that statement for a second. If illegal aliens are not under the jurisdiction of the United States like he claims, then that means illegal aliens do not have to follow US laws...which means they have not broken any US immigration laws. You really want to go down that path?

kane · 08-19-2015, 03:31 PM

I wonder if this will cause some republicans to start to change their view. Many of the republican rank and file have not liked Trump and bashed him likely because they were afraid he might win the nomination and then get crushed in the general election. Now that is seems he could might be able to hold his own in a general election I wonder if they will start changing their tune.

L-Pink · 08-19-2015, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Dumb Trailer trash which I refer to are the typical middle class and lower class which support Republicans because they believe they pay less taxes, when they really don't.

Wow, so a middle class American is now trailer-trash because he votes Republican. What is he if he votes Democrat?

.

arock10 · 08-19-2015, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mineistaken

I wish, man. But there is 47 percenters class which is only growing...

Actually as of the start of the year due to the improving economy the 47% is actually the 40%. But nice try!

Good news for Romney: The 47 percent are now down to 40 percent - The Washington Post

Sly · 08-19-2015, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Wow, so a middle class American is now trailer-trash because he votes Republican. What is he if he votes Democrat?

.

Republicans are idiots because they will only ever vote Republican.

Pay attention.

RyuLion · 08-19-2015, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

bronco67 · 08-19-2015, 06:23 PM

Trump was at a town hall meeting tonight and was making fun of Bush's small crowd, and bragged about how there were exactly 2,579 in the hall.

The fire marshall, whose business it is to know the exact number of people put it around 800.

and you know what? Those 800 rabid conservatives aren't going to translate into votes anyway. They just like to go get angry at town hall meetings, and see a yellow haired, pumpkin face piece of shit speak their language. The language of knuckle-dragging assholes. Love it.

Robbie · 08-19-2015, 06:40 PM

You nailed it exactly bronco67! Great thoughtful analysis on your part.

It's awesome to see such intelligent discussion of issues!
Thank goodness that you are right on the money. The bureaucrats have done such a great job the last 70 or so years with running the country.

Rochard · 08-19-2015, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Nope, he never said anything like what Nazi's said about Jews.

Trump surely didn't say that.

What he said was "some people born in the United States should be stripped of their citizenship even though there were born here". Which is exactly what the Nazi party did.

You better hope you don't have any Hispanic DNA in you Robbie, because Trump might take your citizenship and take it away from you.

TCLGirls · 08-19-2015, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

You nailed it exactly bronco67! Great thoughtful analysis on your part.

It's awesome to see such intelligent discussion of issues!
Thank goodness that you are right on the money. The bureaucrats have done such a great job the last 70 or so years with running the country.

So do you think illegal aliens are under the jurisdiction of the United States, or not?

dyna mo · 08-19-2015, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Trump surely didn't say that.

What he said was "some people born in the United States should be stripped of their citizenship even though there were born here". Which is exactly what the Nazi party did.

You better hope you don't have any Hispanic DNA in you Robbie, because Trump might take your citizenship and take it away from you.

I just googled that quote and....Nada..nothing..zilch.

But wtg making up quotes so you can commit logical fallacies.

ilnjscb · 08-19-2015, 08:59 PM

Trump is a real candidate, and a danger to Hillary, who has no real Dem opponents now. If Gore enters, that may be interesting, but Biden will get crushed.

Hillary's had nothing but bad press from the media looking to make it a horse race. The public will grow tired of this in, I predict, 2-3 months. Bump your threads - nothing new has happened.

Bush will not win the general election. Trump might, but his candidacy is completely unprecedented and the establishment hates him. They usually win.

L-Pink · 08-19-2015, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

So do you think illegal aliens are under the jurisdiction of the United States, or not?

If they are in the US of course they are.

TCLGirls · 08-19-2015, 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

If they are in the US of course they are.

I agree.

The thing is Trump is saying illegal aliens are not under the jurisdiction of the United States per the 14th Amendment, and thus their anchor babies are not US citizens...and his supporters are buying that argument.

L-Pink · 08-19-2015, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

I agree.

The thing is Trump is saying illegal aliens are not under the jurisdiction of the United States per the 14th Amendment, and thus their anchor babies are not US citizens...and his supporters are buying that argument.

Back up, back up. Your question was if illegals are under our jurisdiction. Meaning our legal authority in our geographic area. Yes, they must obey our laws. But they also broke our laws by just being in our geographical area illegally. One of the laws they must adhere to is being here legally.

The rights of a kid, if any, being dropped here wasn't part of your question or my answer.

.

dyna mo · 08-19-2015, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Back up, back up. Your question was if illegals are under our jurisdiction. Meaning our legal authority in our geographic area. Yes, they must obey our laws. But they also broke our laws by just being in our geographical area illegally.

The rights of a kid being dropped here wasn't part of your question or my answer.

.

He thinks foreigners don't have to obey speed limits while in the usa. He must think Jurisdiction = law.

Rochard · 08-19-2015, 09:44 PM

I wonder how many of us would be deported under Trump and his new laws. Think you are safe? Think again. How many of us have parents who came to the US in the late 1940s or early 1950s after WWII, and either came here illegally or have never told us the truth about their past history?

I was thirty when I discovered my family's big secret. Imagine waking up one day and discovering you have an older brother AND and older sister.

TCLGirls · 08-19-2015, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Back up, back up. Your question was if illegals are under our jurisdiction. Meaning our legal authority in our geographic area. Yes, they must obey our laws. But they also broke our laws by just being in our geographical area illegally. One of the laws they must adhere to is being here legally.

I do not disagree with any of that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

The rights of a kid, if any, being dropped here wasn't part of your question or my answer.
.

It was part of my question...read my response to Robbie earlier in the thread.

Either illegal aliens are under the jurisdiction of the United States (which means they must obey US laws, and which also means their anchor babies are US citizens). Or they are not under the jurisdiction of the United States (which means they have not violated immigration laws.). Can't have it both ways.

L-Pink · 08-19-2015, 10:13 PM

A child born to US residents in a foreign country is a US citizen. The reverse should also be true. Any child born to non US residents should be a resident of the country his parents are legally residents of.

TCLGirls · 08-19-2015, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

A child born to US residents in a foreign country is a US citizen. The reverse should also be true. Any child born to non US residents should be a resident of the country his parents are legally residents of.

I do not necessarily disagree with that statement...but enforcing that statement means the US would be telling other countries to accept that statement.. No guarantee of happening

Plus, the US recognizes dual citizenship. So an anchor baby can legally have US citizenship as well as citizenship of their parent's country (if that country agrees)

Relentless · 08-19-2015, 10:42 PM

A debate between Trump and Sanders would be glorious... Not for the future of this country, but as entertainment it might be the best hour ever recorded.

Robbie · 08-20-2015, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

So do you think illegal aliens are under the jurisdiction of the United States, or not?

No. They are legally under the jurisdiction of their home country if they are illegally in the United States.

Are they subject to obeying the laws of the U.S. while in the U.S.? Of course. Just like I am when I visit another country legally.

But for you and I to try and argue this is ridiculous. Neither of us are experts. But the guy who IS an expert is whom I referred to.

Robbie · 08-20-2015, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

I agree.

The thing is Trump is saying illegal aliens are not under the jurisdiction of the United States per the 14th Amendment, and thus their anchor babies are not US citizens...and his supporters are buying that argument.

Actually I didn't hear him say that.

What I heard him say is that they "have to go".

As I said earlier...deport the parents. And they need to take their child with them. When that kid turns 18 he can come to the United States because he is a citizen. Until then, he's a minor and needs to live with his parents in THEIR home country.

Robbie · 08-20-2015, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Relentless

A debate between Trump and Sanders would be glorious... Not for the future of this country, but as entertainment it might be the best hour ever recorded.

It would be awesome. But for you or I to judge what is or is not good for the country would be foolish.

One thing is for certain when talking about the good of the country...NONE of the other bureaucrats in the race for President are good for our country. We don't need more of the same old shit that got us to where we are now (wars, 18 trillion in debt, being spied on, searched like criminals at airports, etc.)

TCLGirls · 08-20-2015, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

No. They are legally under the jurisdiction of their home country if they are illegally in the United States.

Are they subject to obeying the laws of the U.S. while in the U.S.? Of course. Just like I am when I visit another country legally.

But for you and I to try and argue this is ridiculous. Neither of us are experts. But the guy who IS an expert is whom I referred to.

Who is this guy you are referring to? Mark Levin?

TCLGirls · 08-20-2015, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

No. They are legally under the jurisdiction of their home country if they are illegally in the United States.

Are they subject to obeying the laws of the U.S. while in the U.S.? Of course. Just like I am when I visit another country legally.

Jurisdiction: "the official power to make legal decisions and judgments."

If illegal aliens are not under the jurisdiction of the United States, that means the US does not have "the official power to make legal decisions and judgments" regarding those people.

TCLGirls · 08-20-2015, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Actually I didn't hear him say that.

What I heard him say is that they "have to go".

As I said earlier...deport the parents. And they need to take their child with them. When that kid turns 18 he can come to the United States because he is a citizen. Until then, he's a minor and needs to live with his parents in THEIR home country.

This is another non-starter. It has already been witnessed that non-US citizens children have been arriving at the border by the tens of thousands. Now you don't think that US citizen children won't be doing the same? Is border patrol supposed to deny these US Citizen children from re-entering the US if they arrive by themselves (or with other US Citizen children) at the border?

Robbie · 08-20-2015, 12:37 AM

Here is an interesting opinion article by a CNN legal analyst:

Could Trump really change birthright rules? - CNN.com

TCLGirls · 08-20-2015, 12:41 AM

And yes I have reviewed Mark Levin's argument that somehow "jurisdiction" as mentioned in the 14th Amendment really means "allegiance". Yet again, that line of argument makes no sense because dual citizenship has been recognized in the US for years. What does he want, to revoke the US Citizenship of all children born to dual citizenship parents? That would make Ted Cruz and both of his children all illegal aliens.

Robbie · 08-20-2015, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

This is another non-starter. It has already been witnessed that non-US citizens children have been arriving at the border by the tens of thousands. Now you don't think that US citizen children won't be doing the same? Is border patrol supposed to deny these US Citizen children from re-entering the US if they arrive by themselves (or with other US Citizen children) at the border?

A minor can't legally just live on it's own. I don't care how many children show up.

If a child runs away from home, they are returned to the parents.

That would be my whole argument if I were to make one against the "anchor babies". Their parents are illegal. The child would be a U.S. citizen. But the child has to live with it's parents or if he/she has other family in the U.S. they could live with them.

But the parents? Send 'em back home. And take their kid with them. When he/she is 18 years old, then he/she could come back.

That makes the most common sense to me.

It seems ass-backwards to allow people to enter the country to shit out a baby so the parents themselves can now stay.
Makes no sense in any way.

Don't you agree? Or do you think it's just fine and dandy the way it is?

Also...we all realize that the 14th amendment was written to make all the freed slaves citizens (they were all born to parents who were slaves themselves and not citizens).
Using it for "anchor babies" is a legal loophole that is detrimental to the country.

Or do you think it's a great idea to allow it to continue?

Robbie · 08-20-2015, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

And yes I have reviewed Mark Levin's argument that somehow "jurisdiction" as mentioned in the 14th Amendment really means "allegiance". Yet again, that line of argument makes no sense because dual citizenship has been recognized in the US for years. What does he want, to revoke the US Citizenship of all children born to dual citizenship parents? That would make Ted Cruz and both of his children all illegal aliens.

What does Mark Levin have to do with anything? Do you listen to his show or something? I've never even heard the guy's show or know much about him except for googling him after you brought him up.

Are you trying to say that Mark Levin believes the same thing...therefore it's some kind of super-right nutcase Republican thing?

I also believe that this Mark Levin character breathes air, eats food, and drinks water. Does that mean that "good" people don't do that because he does it? lol

Let me give you another person who once espoused ending anchor babies: My own embarrassment of a Senator: Harry Reid.
He changed his tune when it became politically expedient to do so. But yes, he once pretty much agreed with the position that Trump is putting forth.

But like all bureaucrats, he changed his mind on it to keep himself in power and get votes.

TCLGirls · 08-20-2015, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

A minor can't legally just live on it's own. I don't care how many children show up.

If a child runs away from home, they are returned to the parents.

Not if you can't find the parents. Those children become wards of the State.

What is the US supposed to do...go to whatever country they think the parent is located in, find them, and force them to take custody of their US citizen child?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

That would be my whole argument if I were to make one against the "anchor babies". Their parents are illegal. The child would be a U.S. citizen. But the child has to live with it's parents or if he/she has other family in the U.S. they could live with them.

But the parents? Send 'em back home. And take their kid with them. When he/she is 18 years old, then he/she could come back.

That makes the most common sense to me.

Like I said above, the child does not have to live with the parents if those parents can't be found. You can't seriously think the US government will send thousands of government agents to span foreign countries in search of these absentee parents, and if they find them, force those parents to re-take custody of their child? How would they even force that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

It seems ass-backwards to allow people to enter the country to shit out a baby so the parents themselves can now stay.
Makes no sense in any way.

Don't you agree? Or do you think it's just fine and dandy the way it is?

I do agree it is ass backwards...but to expect that these US citizen children will not be turning right around and demanding to enter the US is ass backwards x2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Also...we all realize that the 14th amendment was written to make all the freed slaves citizens (they were all born to parents who were slaves themselves and not citizens).
Using it for "anchor babies" is a legal loophole that is detrimental to the country.

Or do you think it's a great idea to allow it to continue?

No I do not think it is a great idea and that it should be allowed to continue unabated. But the method that Trump is proposing, to say illegal aliens are not under the jurisdiction of the US, is even worse. If one wants to really stop this phenomenon from happening, the correct way would be to amend the Constitution to more clearly indicate that birthright citizenship does not apply to those who enter illegally. But a Constitutional amendment requires agreement by both House and Senate...PLUS 3/4 approval of every state legislature in this country. Trump knows that is highly unlikely from ever happening, that is why he is proposing this much simpler argument.

TCLGirls · 08-20-2015, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

What does Mark Levin have to do with anything? Do you listen to his show or something? I've never even heard the guy's show or know much about him except for googling him after you brought him up.

Are you trying to say that Mark Levin believes the same thing...therefore it's some kind of super-right nutcase Republican thing?

I also believe that this Mark Levin character breathes air, eats food, and drinks water. Does that mean that "good" people don't do that because he does it? lol

Let me give you another person who once espoused ending anchor babies: My own embarrassment of a Senator: Harry Reid.
He changed his tune when it became politically expedient to do so. But yes, he once pretty much agreed with the position that Trump is putting forth.

But like all bureaucrats, he changed his mind on it to keep himself in power and get votes.

You referenced an unnamed person you heard talk on the radio claiming illegal aliens are not under the jurisdiction of the United States. Mark Levin is one of the more popular persons who is advancing that idea. If you are not referencing him, then I won't mention him again.

GregE · 08-20-2015, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

They are growing because of what govt. is doing to them.

I think a guy like Trump appeals to many of them too. I guess it would be a case of how many of those "47 percenters" really want to be part of that group and how many want to move UP in the world and stop getting handouts?

My guess is the majority of them would like to have a "hand up and not a hand out" as I've heard said before...

A lot of people currently on food stamps and the like only became eligible for such after their jobs were off shored or were taken by H-1B's.

Trump promises to reverse that trend. The "47 percenters" who believe him will no doubt vote for him. Ditto still others who fear that their jobs will be off shored in the coming years.

Sanders too is appealing to that same demographic and he's steadily gaining on Hillary.

This is going to be an interesting election season to be sure.

Robbie · 08-20-2015, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

You referenced an unnamed person you heard talk on the radio claiming illegal aliens are not under the jurisdiction of the United States. Mark Levin is one of the more popular persons who is advancing that idea. If you are not referencing him, then I won't mention him again.

I said pretty clearly that it was on CBS NEWS radio. Top of the hour national news from CBS. Not an opinion/talk show.

They said the guy's name and how he was an expert. I was on my way to the gym and don't remember his name.
I tried googling it up but it's not showing anything.

I wish I had memorized it. But it wasn't that big a deal to me and I had other things on my mind.

Robbie · 08-20-2015, 01:25 AM

No I do not think it is a great idea and that it should be allowed to continue unabated. But the method that Trump is proposing, to say illegal aliens are not under the jurisdiction of the US, is even worse. [/QUOTE]

The whole "under the jurisdiction" was meant to cover the freed slaves in 1868 when the amendment was passed. They truly were "under the jurisdiction".

Illegal aliens are not.

The Supreme Court even ruled that Native American Indians were not "under the jurisdiction" and gave them citizenship on a case-by-case basis until Congress granted all of them citizenship in 1924.

This isn't quite as black and white as it appears.

But again...I would simply send the parents back home and make them take their kids with them. Let the kids be citizens. But make them live with their parents in the parent's home country until they are of legal age.

TCLGirls · 08-20-2015, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Actually I didn't hear him say that.

What I heard him say is that they "have to go".

Trump:

"I don't think they have American citizenship and if you speak to some very, very good lawyers -- and I know some will disagree -- but many of them agree with me and you're going to find they do not have American citizenship. We have to start a process where we take back our country."

Donald Trump: Birthright babies not citizens - CNNPolitics.com

Trump clearly said that he thinks children born to illegal aliens in the US do not have US citizenship. So even you disagree with him because you said those anchor babies can return to the US when they are 18. But under Trump's plan, those children aren't even US citizens to begin with, so they can't legally return to the US as citizens when they are 18.

Robbie · 08-20-2015, 01:29 AM

I simply said I didn't hear him say that. I didn't mean he didn't say it. Sorry for that confusion.

And Trump "may" be correct in his assertion as I was telling you.

But...in my personal opinion it's a huge waste of time and money to go down that route when you can simply deport the illegals and make them take their kids with them.

TCLGirls · 08-20-2015, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

The whole "under the jurisdiction" was meant to cover the freed slaves in 1868 when the amendment was passed. They truly were "under the jurisdiction".

Illegal aliens are not.

The Supreme Court even ruled that Native American Indians were not "under the jurisdiction" and gave them citizenship on a case-by-case basis until Congress granted all of them citizenship in 1924.

This isn't quite as black and white as it appears.

But again...I would simply send the parents back home and make them take their kids with them. Let the kids be citizens. But make them live with their parents in the parent's home country until they are of legal age.

I do not think you want to seriously go down that road of arguing "what was meant" by the Amendment. If you do, then you would have to accept that the 2nd Amendment "was meant" only to cover muskets and other similar revolution era weapon technology...not semi-automatic rifles. And the 1st Amendment "was meant" to cover political speech...not pornography.

Robbie · 08-20-2015, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

I do not think you want to seriously go down that road of arguing "what was meant" by the Amendment. If you do, then you would have to accept that the 2nd Amendment "was meant" only to cover muskets and other similar revolution era weapon technology...not semi-automatic rifles. And the 1st Amendment "was meant" to cover political speech...not pornography.

Not sure how you can make that analogy in any way, shape, or form.

The 2nd amendment says "bear arms" and was set up so the govt. couldn't disarm the citizenry.

The 14th amendment was set up decades later to ensure that former slaves were now considered full citizens.

Your analogy is just not there.
For instance...right now, if an ambassador from another country is living in New York (where the UN is at) and his wife has a baby in New York...that baby is NOT a U.S. citizen by law. Even though it was born on U.S. soil.

Google that one up and you'll see it plain as day.

But yet somehow a person entering the country who isn't a diplomat can have a baby and it's automatically a citizen?

So how come the 14th amendment doesn't cover that child of the diplomat, and didn't cover Native Americans...but is good for everyone else?

That's the gray area that Trump is saying could be challenged in court.

And he's right...there is a good argument for that.

Hey, if you had told me that Pres. Obama would have won the ObamaCare argument in the Supreme Court I would have said "No way".
But since I'm no legal expert, I had no idea that the Court would simply declare it as a "Tax" and say yes it's legal.

So before you offhandedly dismiss that the 14th amendment can be challenged in the case of "anchor babies", you should keep that in mind.

08-19-2015, 06:23 PM	#67
bronco67 Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 29,032	Trump was at a town hall meeting tonight and was making fun of Bush's small crowd, and bragged about how there were exactly 2,579 in the hall. The fire marshall, whose business it is to know the exact number of people put it around 800. and you know what? Those 800 rabid conservatives aren't going to translate into votes anyway. They just like to go get angry at town hall meetings, and see a yellow haired, pumpkin face piece of shit speak their language. The language of knuckle-dragging assholes. Love it. __________________

08-19-2015, 06:40 PM	#68
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	You nailed it exactly bronco67! Great thoughtful analysis on your part. It's awesome to see such intelligent discussion of issues! Thank goodness that you are right on the money. The bureaucrats have done such a great job the last 70 or so years with running the country. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

08-19-2015, 09:44 PM	#77
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 73,210	I wonder how many of us would be deported under Trump and his new laws. Think you are safe? Think again. How many of us have parents who came to the US in the late 1940s or early 1950s after WWII, and either came here illegally or have never told us the truth about their past history? I was thirty when I discovered my family's big secret. Imagine waking up one day and discovering you have an older brother AND and older sister. __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

08-19-2015, 10:42 PM	#81
Relentless www.EngineFood.com Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,697	A debate between Trump and Sanders would be glorious... Not for the future of this country, but as entertainment it might be the best hour ever recorded. __________________ Website Secure \| Engine Food ICQ# 266-942-896

08-20-2015, 12:37 AM	#88
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	Here is an interesting opinion article by a CNN legal analyst: Could Trump really change birthright rules? - CNN.com __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

08-19-2015, 02:11 PM	#57
TCLGirls Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Posts: 3,068	So now Trump is saying certain people born in the United States are not real US citizens? Reminds me of the time someone said Jews living in Germany were not real German citizens.

08-19-2015, 03:31 PM	#62
kane Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, OR Posts: 20,684	I wonder if this will cause some republicans to start to change their view. Many of the republican rank and file have not liked Trump and bashed him likely because they were afraid he might win the nomination and then get crushed in the general election. Now that is seems he could might be able to hold his own in a general election I wonder if they will start changing their tune.

08-19-2015, 08:59 PM	#72
ilnjscb Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 8,804	Trump is a real candidate, and a danger to Hillary, who has no real Dem opponents now. If Gore enters, that may be interesting, but Biden will get crushed. Hillary's had nothing but bad press from the media looking to make it a horse race. The public will grow tired of this in, I predict, 2-3 months. Bump your threads - nothing new has happened. Bush will not win the general election. Trump might, but his candidacy is completely unprecedented and the establishment hates him. They usually win.

08-19-2015, 10:13 PM	#79
L-Pink working on my tan Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Florida/Kentucky Posts: 39,151	A child born to US residents in a foreign country is a US citizen. The reverse should also be true. Any child born to non US residents should be a resident of the country his parents are legally residents of.

08-20-2015, 12:41 AM	#89
TCLGirls Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Posts: 3,068	And yes I have reviewed Mark Levin's argument that somehow "jurisdiction" as mentioned in the 14th Amendment really means "allegiance". Yet again, that line of argument makes no sense because dual citizenship has been recognized in the US for years. What does he want, to revoke the US Citizenship of all children born to dual citizenship parents? That would make Ted Cruz and both of his children all illegal aliens.

08-20-2015, 01:25 AM	#96
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	No I do not think it is a great idea and that it should be allowed to continue unabated. But the method that Trump is proposing, to say illegal aliens are not under the jurisdiction of the US, is even worse. [/QUOTE] The whole "under the jurisdiction" was meant to cover the freed slaves in 1868 when the amendment was passed. They truly were "under the jurisdiction". Illegal aliens are not. The Supreme Court even ruled that Native American Indians were not "under the jurisdiction" and gave them citizenship on a case-by-case basis until Congress granted all of them citizenship in 1924. This isn't quite as black and white as it appears. But again...I would simply send the parents back home and make them take their kids with them. Let the kids be citizens. But make them live with their parents in the parent's home country until they are of legal age. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com

08-20-2015, 01:29 AM	#98
Robbie Leaner, Meaner, Faster Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Vegas Posts: 20,959	I simply said I didn't hear him say that. I didn't mean he didn't say it. Sorry for that confusion. And Trump "may" be correct in his assertion as I was telling you. But...in my personal opinion it's a huge waste of time and money to go down that route when you can simply deport the illegals and make them take their kids with them. __________________ -Robbie ClaudiaMarie.Com