Trump Now Within 6 Points Of Clinton In National Election - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

j3rkules · 08-20-2015, 09:49 AM

100 trumps.

crockett · 08-20-2015, 09:56 AM

I don't agree with anchor babies if the parents are here illegally. If the parents are here legally, it might be more up to discussion, but even that should be a case by case situation if the parents aren't citizens.

I'm not 100% but I'd suspect I couldn't go to say Norway or France with a pergnet wife, have a kid while on vacation then expect to live there because the kid was born there.. I wouldn't suspect many countries would allow that, but then again I could be wrong.

The whole premise of anchor babies just encourages abuse of the law.

MK Ultra · 08-20-2015, 10:58 AM

I just think it's fucking hilarious that we're once again having this exact same argument that was supposed to be "settled" back in 1986

When amnesty was granted to 4 million illegals with congress's solemn promise that we would never do anything like that again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigr...ol_Act_of_1986

That's when I first heard of and was appalled by the practice of "anchor babies" a practice that still continues 29 years later

As usual government was never held accountable for breaking it's promises.

I'll say it again, we have the government we deserve.

Sly · 08-20-2015, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MK Ultra

As usual government was never held accountable for breaking it's promises.

I'll say it again, we have the government we deserve.

Politicians don't need to be held accountable. They need to get in, sell some dreams and then blame the other guy when those dreams don't happen, then promise the dreams again to get elected once again. Rinse and repeat.

What happens when a businessman depends on "blaming the other guy?" They lose their business and are out on the streets. Toxic.

TCLGirls · 08-20-2015, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

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.

If you want to go with the "was meant" argument...do you think the authors of the 1st Amendment "meant" to cover internet pornography?

Rochard · 08-20-2015, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

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.

Um... That's exactly what it means. If an ambassador from another country is living in NY and his wife has a babe in NY.... That baby is in fact US Citizen.

Black All Through · 08-20-2015, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Just like McCain was neck and neck and Romney as well..you are deluding yourself if you think Trump will be president..

However, the longer he stays in the race, more he will give to the Democrats. He's not popular at all with the undecided and independents (8%-12% of voters).

dyna mo · 08-20-2015, 01:30 PM

Trump, the bell tolls for thee!

not.

he's 6 points out from HIlls, when she drops out and the DNC falls into complete disarray, he'll be standing alone at the top of both party's heaps of candidates.

Axeman · 08-20-2015, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Um... That's exactly what it means. If an ambassador from another country is living in NY and his wife has a babe in NY.... That baby is in fact US Citizen.

The 14th amendment specifically says diplomats do not fall under the jurisdiction of the US. I hope the issue goes to court and a ruling officially gets challenged. Even though the amendment gives congress sole discretion to name who gets citizenship.

HelmutKohl · 08-20-2015, 01:40 PM

Axeman · 08-20-2015, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

If you want to go with the "was meant" argument...do you think the authors of the 1st Amendment "meant" to cover internet pornography?

The Author of the Citizen clause of the 14th amendment:

Quote:

Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, defined who would fall within the "jurisdiction of the United States":
[E]very person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.

Native Americans were excluded because their jurisdiction/loyalty was to their tribes. In 1884 a native left his reservation and tried to get US citizenship. He was denied by the supreme court as he was deemed to still have partial loyalty to his tribe. Congress changed this and made all Natives citizens in 1923 using their power to decide who can be allowed.

1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark the Supreme court ordered that children born in the United States to permanent legal residents of the US are afforded the right of citizenship.

That is the only decision on whose babies, other than citizens could be afforded automatic citizenship.

Neither the Supreme Court or Congress have ever declared or changed the law to provide children of either illegals, tourists, foreigners or diplomats automatic citizenship.

Congress could convene tomorrow and declare that of course, but haven't. In fact in 1997 congress tried to convene to make the language crystal clear that the above were not automatic citizens by birth. But outside groups pressured them to not pass it. One of the biggest champions of this language was Sen Harry Reid. You can google his 1993 floor speech about why it should not be granted to these children.

Eventually this will come before the Supreme Court. Even if congress passes their own new language either way, it will get challenged to the court.

crockett · 08-20-2015, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sly

Politicians don't need to be held accountable. They need to get in, sell some dreams and then blame the other guy when those dreams don't happen, then promise the dreams again to get elected once again. Rinse and repeat.

What happens when a businessman depends on "blaming the other guy?" They lose their business and are out on the streets. Toxic.

Bullshit, as Trump knows, he just files bankruptcy and pretends he has no money till the day after the hearing...

L-Pink · 08-20-2015, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

I don't agree with anchor babies if the parents are here illegally. If the parents are here legally, it might be more up to discussion, but even that should be a case by case situation if the parents aren't citizens.

I'm not 100% but I'd suspect I couldn't go to say Norway or France with a pergnet wife, have a kid while on vacation then expect to live there because the kid was born there.. I wouldn't suspect many countries would allow that, but then again I could be wrong.

The whole premise of anchor babies just encourages abuse of the law.

dyna mo · 08-20-2015, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

Bullshit, as Trump knows, he just files bankruptcy and pretends he has no money till the day after the hearing...

i know you're trying "rile up the conservatives" but really. think about what you just wrote- that Trump scammed the courts and that his personal resources were involved with more than the first br. you can't pretend to be broke as a strategy with high-profile proceedings like this, they are scrutinized to the nth degree. and Trump's personal resources were only at risk in the first one anyway.

Axeman · 08-20-2015, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

I don't agree with anchor babies if the parents are here illegally. If the parents are here legally, it might be more up to discussion, but even that should be a case by case situation if the parents aren't citizens.

I'm not 100% but I'd suspect I couldn't go to say Norway or France with a pergnet wife, have a kid while on vacation then expect to live there because the kid was born there.. I wouldn't suspect many countries would allow that, but then again I could be wrong.

The whole premise of anchor babies just encourages abuse of the law.

France, you could have but they changed their laws in 1993, so now you can't. List of recent countries that stopped the practice of granting birthrights to non citizens babies.
Australia (2007)
New Zealand (2005)
Ireland (2005)
France (1993)
India (1987)
Malta (1989)
UK (1983)
Portugal (1981)

Outside of the USA, Canada and Mexico, the only other countries that give automatic citizenship at birth for all, is the Latin American and Caribbean countries. No European or Asian country allows it. But you are in luck if you go have your child in Pakistan!!

Rochard · 08-20-2015, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axeman

The 14th amendment specifically says diplomats do not fall under the jurisdiction of the US. I hope the issue goes to court and a ruling officially gets challenged. Even though the amendment gives congress sole discretion to name who gets citizenship.

Great, fine, brilliant. Diplomats don't count. Diplomats typically aren't making anchor babies.

I can think of dozens of people on GFY alone will be impacted by this. One poster on this board is married to a man born in the US, but his parents were here legally on a work visa when he was born. Wonderful. Let's kick them both out of the country, and their new baby too. Then we can take their house.

How does that solve our problem?

Axeman · 08-20-2015, 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Great, fine, brilliant. Diplomats don't count. Diplomats typically aren't making anchor babies.

I can think of dozens of people on GFY alone will be impacted by this. One poster on this board is married to a man born in the US, but his parents were here legally on a work visa when he was born. Wonderful. Let's kick them both out of the country, and their new baby too. Then we can take their house.

How does that solve our problem?

You are so ridiculous it makes my head hurt sometimes. Nobody is saying to retroactively take away citizenship. People are making the argument to change it going forward. Of course you know this, and just like to kick and scream and act irrational to try extra hard to make your point.

Barry-xlovecam · 08-20-2015, 03:50 PM

Immigration reform that will make America great again

The three core principles of Donald J. Trump's immigration plan
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positio...gration-reform
The (reformer's ) legal theory and reasoning of the 14 Amendment's intent of Congress.
Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment | colorado immigration law resources reference

News: Donald Trump Releases Immigration Reform Plan Designed To Get Americans Back To Work | CAIRCO news illegal aliens crime immigrants America

Donald Trump’s Mexican Border Wall Is a Moronic Idea

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/08/18...ration-border/

Quote:

Trump says building a U.S.-Mexico wall is "easy" But is it really? - The Washington Post

Wayne Cornelius, director of the Mexican migration field research program at the University of California at San Diego, called Trump’s proposal “ludicrous. . . . Any physical barrier can be tunneled under or climbed over or gotten around. There will always be gaps, and smugglers and migrants will seek out those gaps and go through.”

A president Trump will be a diplomatic nightmare. His immigration policy is a scam for the populist and simpleton voters to grasp to, to change their lives of believed misery that they believe to be the fault of the "Pedros" of the world, that who for the most part, come to the United States to work toward bettering their lives at "Homer's" expense.

Trump is a top feeder and you naively believe that he is looking out for your interests ROFLMO. Trump will spend $500 million of his own money to try to get the Republican nomination -- Why?

And if he doesn't get the Republican nomination: He implies the threat to run, Trump and his over sized ego, as an independent third party candidate for President and guarantee the election of a President Hillary (or other Democrat candidate).

No mater who wins this time we all will lose ...

Vote for Captain Kirk

Robbie · 08-20-2015, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCLGirls

If you want to go with the "was meant" argument...do you think the authors of the 1st Amendment "meant" to cover internet pornography?

Jesus....are you just trolling? Freedom of speech protects ALL speech. And yes Ben Franklin loved dirty pictures and prostitutes.

sandman! · 08-20-2015, 04:06 PM

Rochard · 08-20-2015, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axeman

You are so ridiculous it makes my head hurt sometimes. Nobody is saying to retroactively take away citizenship. People are making the argument to change it going forward. Of course you know this, and just like to kick and scream and act irrational to try extra hard to make your point.

Really, because it sounds exactly what Trump is talking about.

Donald Trump clashed with Bill O?Reilly on Tuesday night over the part of his immigration plan that would take away citizenship from the children who were born in the United States but whose parents came to the country illegally.

Donald Trump 2016: To Bill O'Reilly, Trump says 14th Amendment is unconstitutional - POLITICO

TCLGirls · 08-20-2015, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Jesus....are you just trolling? Freedom of speech protects ALL speech. And yes Ben Franklin loved dirty pictures and prostitutes.

Actually you are wrong. Freedom of speech does not protect all speech...CP for example is not protected by the first amendment. Neither is slander/defamation.

But anyhow that is besides the point. If the first amendment protects ideas that weren't originally envisioned by its authors, then so too the 14th amendment.

kane · 08-20-2015, 05:24 PM

To me the anchor baby question should be very simple. Is one of the parents a US citizen? If so, the baby is a US citizen. If not, the baby is not.

Axeman · 08-20-2015, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

To me the anchor baby question should be very simple. Is one of the parents a US citizen? If so, the baby is a US citizen. If not, the baby is not.

Agreed. That is the way it should be. The Supreme Court already made it so perm residents children also get this right. But that should be the only exceptions.

JuicyBunny · 08-20-2015, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

Trump, the bell tolls for thee!

not.

he's 6 points out from HIlls, when she drops out and the DNC falls into complete disarray, he'll be standing alone at the top of both party's heaps of candidates.

+1 - What was Hilly thinking?

kane · 08-20-2015, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Axeman

Agreed. That is the way it should be. The Supreme Court already made it so perm residents children also get this right. But that should be the only exceptions.

If a person is a permanent legal resident of the US, I don't have a problem with their baby being a US citizen.

I just don't like seeing illegals coming here, having kids and then since the kids are US citizens it makes it harder to deport the parents, not to mention the system now supporting the families.

Axeman · 08-20-2015, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kane

If a person is a permanent legal resident of the US, I don't have a problem with their baby being a US citizen.

I just don't like seeing illegals coming here, having kids and then since the kids are US citizens it makes it harder to deport the parents, not to mention the system now supporting the families.

Totally agree with you.

TCLGirls · 08-20-2015, 05:58 PM

As of right now, foreigners on Student Visa can also have anchor babies. That's how GOP presidential candidate Bobby Jindal became a US Citizen. His father came to the US on a student visa. Then he brought his wife over here too (who was already 8 months pregnant). Then Little Bobby came out soon after.

And there are "Birth Tourism" packages being sold all over wealthier Asian countries these days. One-year tourist visas (which can be auto extended for 2 years) allows non-pregnant tourists to come to the US, then get pregnant while on US soil.

But I wouldn't think those people are any less American just because of that.

08-20-2015, 09:49 AM	#101
j3rkules VIP Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 22,111	100 trumps. __________________ How To Build A Porn Site And Make Money \| My Best $$$ Cam Sponsor \| New Webcam Script 3 Top Adult Hosting Providers

08-20-2015, 10:58 AM	#103
MK Ultra Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 877	I just think it's fucking hilarious that we're once again having this exact same argument that was supposed to be "settled" back in 1986 When amnesty was granted to 4 million illegals with congress's solemn promise that we would never do anything like that again. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigr...ol_Act_of_1986 That's when I first heard of and was appalled by the practice of "anchor babies" a practice that still continues 29 years later As usual government was never held accountable for breaking it's promises. I'll say it again, we have the government we deserve. __________________

08-20-2015, 04:06 PM	#120
sandman! Icq: 14420613 Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: chicago Posts: 15,432	__________________ Need WebHosting ? Email me for some great deals [email protected]

08-20-2015, 09:56 AM	#102
crockett in a van by the river Industry Role: Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 76,806	I don't agree with anchor babies if the parents are here illegally. If the parents are here legally, it might be more up to discussion, but even that should be a case by case situation if the parents aren't citizens. I'm not 100% but I'd suspect I couldn't go to say Norway or France with a pergnet wife, have a kid while on vacation then expect to live there because the kid was born there.. I wouldn't suspect many countries would allow that, but then again I could be wrong. The whole premise of anchor babies just encourages abuse of the law.

08-20-2015, 01:30 PM	#108
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 64,170	Trump, the bell tolls for thee! not. he's 6 points out from HIlls, when she drops out and the DNC falls into complete disarray, he'll be standing alone at the top of both party's heaps of candidates.

08-20-2015, 01:40 PM	#110
HelmutKohl Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: Amsterdam Posts: 378

08-20-2015, 05:24 PM	#123
kane Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, OR Posts: 20,684	To me the anchor baby question should be very simple. Is one of the parents a US citizen? If so, the baby is a US citizen. If not, the baby is not.

08-20-2015, 05:58 PM	#128
TCLGirls Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Posts: 3,068	As of right now, foreigners on Student Visa can also have anchor babies. That's how GOP presidential candidate Bobby Jindal became a US Citizen. His father came to the US on a student visa. Then he brought his wife over here too (who was already 8 months pregnant). Then Little Bobby came out soon after. And there are "Birth Tourism" packages being sold all over wealthier Asian countries these days. One-year tourist visas (which can be auto extended for 2 years) allows non-pregnant tourists to come to the US, then get pregnant while on US soil. But I wouldn't think those people are any less American just because of that.