Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum » Based Vivek: deport illegals together with their US born children
  1. Results 61 to 90 of 132
  2. Page 3 of 5
  3. First
  5. 1
  6. 2
  7. 3
  8. 4
  9. 5
  11. Last

Thread: Based Vivek: deport illegals together with their US born children

post 1689982283 09-13-2023, 07:29 AM
-
#61
  1. miscinbro
  2. Registered User
  1. miscinbro
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2016
  4. Age: 43
  5. Posts: 22,420
  6. Rep Power: 46435
Originally Posted By RIKTER⏩
No.
Yes, the 14th couldn’t be any more clear.
post 1689982853 09-13-2023, 07:44 AM
-
#62
  1. RIKTER
  2. Registered User
  1. RIKTER
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Dec 2006
  4. Age: 51
  5. Posts: 31,602
  6. Rep Power: 241807
Originally Posted By miscinbro⏩
Yes, the 14th couldn’t be any more clear.
Thats factually inaccurate.

The 14th amendment has been bastardized to include birthright citizenship to those here illegally via executive interpretation.

The original intent of the 14th:

"The 14th Amendment was intended to guarantee the citizenship of freed black slaves and their descendants. Before the Civil War, there had been no federal definition of citizenship. After the war, some states tried to use that fact to deny citizenship to freed slaves. In response, Congress first passed a law and later the amendment — subsequently ratified by all then-existing states — to clarify the issue forever."

"American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are."
post 1689983473 09-13-2023, 08:02 AM
-
#63
  1. Audioslave
  2. Registered User
  1. Audioslave
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Oct 2004
  4. Posts: 5,222
  5. Rep Power: 18763
Political suicide. Deporting people who were born in the USA and now in their 20s and 30s because their parents came here illegally? Plenty of the people in this country, some of who I know, got here because their families came here from Europe illegally. Ever hear the phrase:children won't suffer for the sins of their parents? He's creating a great argument for reparations. It would be a terrible precedent.
YOU ARE NOT A SLAVE
post 1689988033 09-13-2023, 09:36 AM
-
#64
  1. OGfrom06
  2. Banned
  1. OGfrom06
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Jun 2023
  4. Posts: 4,983
  5. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By Audioslave⏩
children won't suffer for the sins of their parents?
Then they shouldn't benefit from their sins either.
post 1689988513 09-13-2023, 09:47 AM
-
#65
  1. RIKTER
  2. Registered User
  1. RIKTER
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Dec 2006
  4. Age: 51
  5. Posts: 31,602
  6. Rep Power: 241807
Originally Posted By Audioslave⏩
Political suicide. Deporting people who were born in the USA and now in their 20s and 30s because their parents came here illegally? Plenty of the people in this country, some of who I know, got here because their families came here from Europe illegally. Ever hear the phrase:children won't suffer for the sins of their parents? He's creating a great argument for reparations. It would be a terrible precedent.
So youre in favor of deporting their parents. Thats a good start.

PS. If youre a blond hair blued illegal immigrant from Europe, GTFO.
post 1689988553 09-13-2023, 09:48 AM
-
#66
  1. Audioslave
  2. Registered User
  1. Audioslave
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Oct 2004
  4. Posts: 5,222
  5. Rep Power: 18763
Originally Posted By OGfrom06⏩
Then they shouldn't benefit from their sins either.
Literally the perfect argument for reparations.
YOU ARE NOT A SLAVE
post 1689989113 09-13-2023, 10:00 AM
-
#67
  1. OGfrom06
  2. Banned
  1. OGfrom06
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Jun 2023
  4. Posts: 4,983
  5. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By Audioslave⏩
Literally the perfect argument for reparations.
I am all for reparations if it also means settling those who receive reparations back to Africa.
post 1689991603 09-13-2023, 10:41 AM
-
#68
  1. Phil9
  2. Registered User
  1. Phil9
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Aug 2011
  4. Age: 39
  5. Posts: 27,396
  6. Rep Power: 35470
Originally Posted By RIKTER⏩
No.
It helps if you read the Amendment. Since apparently you didn’t.
post 1689991973 09-13-2023, 10:48 AM
-
#69
  1. Phil9
  2. Registered User
  1. Phil9
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Aug 2011
  4. Age: 39
  5. Posts: 27,396
  6. Rep Power: 35470
Originally Posted By RIKTER⏩
Thats factually inaccurate.

The 14th amendment has been bastardized to include birthright citizenship to those here illegally via executive interpretation.

The original intent of the 14th:

"The 14th Amendment was intended to guarantee the citizenship of freed black slaves and their descendants. Before the Civil War, there had been no federal definition of citizenship. After the war, some states tried to use that fact to deny citizenship to freed slaves. In response, Congress first passed a law and later the amendment — subsequently ratified by all then-existing states — to clarify the issue forever."

"American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are."
Imagine pretending American Indians have the same circumstances as other people. Especially when the 14th Amendment and Article I even mention “Indians not taxed.”
post 1689992073 09-13-2023, 10:51 AM
-
#70
  1. Abzu
  2. Registered User
  1. Abzu
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2020
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 8,174
  6. Rep Power: 47196
Originally Posted By miscinbro⏩
Yes, the 14th couldn’t be any more clear.
Neither could the 1st, the 2nd or the 4th.
Originally Posted By Phil9⏩
It helps if you read the Amendment. Since apparently you didn’t.
Apparently it doesn't.
Originally Posted By Audioslave⏩
Literally the perfect argument for reparations.
The argument is true even if you don't like what it means in other debates.

If someone robs a bank do their kids get to keep the ill gains?

The anwser is the same for illegals and slavery beneficiaries.
I: Self, Lord and Master.

"I rub my hands when my palms itch."

"I call you Son not because you Shine but because you Mine."
post 1689992303 09-13-2023, 10:53 AM
-
#71
  1. Phil9
  2. Registered User
  1. Phil9
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Aug 2011
  4. Age: 39
  5. Posts: 27,396
  6. Rep Power: 35470
Originally Posted By Abzu⏩
Neither could the 1st, the 2nd or the 4th.



Apparently it doesn't.



The argument is true even if you don't like what it means in other debates.
Over a century of consistent SCOTUS precedent says it does. Has Vivek read them?
post 1689992733 09-13-2023, 10:59 AM
-
#72
  1. Abzu
  2. Registered User
  1. Abzu
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2020
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 8,174
  6. Rep Power: 47196
Originally Posted By Phil9⏩
Over a century of consistent SCOTUS precedent says it does. Has Vivek read them?
I don't know, I don't support Vivek's political aspirations and I don't personally know him.
I: Self, Lord and Master.

"I rub my hands when my palms itch."

"I call you Son not because you Shine but because you Mine."
post 1689995333 09-13-2023, 11:45 AM
-
#73
  1. baroni01
  2. Registered User
  1. baroni01
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: May 2004
  4. Location: Los Angeles
  5. Age: 39
  6. Posts: 13,096
  7. Rep Power: 44500
So he's a phony? A big fat phony?
post 1689995903 09-13-2023, 11:52 AM
-
#74
  1. miscinbro
  2. Registered User
  1. miscinbro
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2016
  4. Age: 43
  5. Posts: 22,420
  6. Rep Power: 46435
Originally Posted By RIKTER⏩
Thats factually inaccurate.

The 14th amendment has been bastardized to include birthright citizenship to those here illegally via executive interpretation.

The original intent of the 14th:

"The 14th Amendment was intended to guarantee the citizenship of freed black slaves and their descendants. Before the Civil War, there had been no federal definition of citizenship. After the war, some states tried to use that fact to deny citizenship to freed slaves. In response, Congress first passed a law and later the amendment — subsequently ratified by all then-existing states — to clarify the issue forever."

"American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are."
You don’t understand how this works. I agree with you that the 14th was not about immigration at all.

However, that’s not how laws work. The words of the 14th are crystal clear. We don’t ignore crystal clear words by trying to divine “intent” a century and a half later.
post 1689996453 09-13-2023, 12:02 PM
-
#75
  1. miscinbro
  2. Registered User
  1. miscinbro
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2016
  4. Age: 43
  5. Posts: 22,420
  6. Rep Power: 46435
Originally Posted By Abzu⏩
Neither could the 1st, the 2nd or the 4th.
That’s just not true. I’ll use an example my con law professor (who clerked for Scalia btw) used. Look at the 1st “congress shall make no law” - but in article 1 section 8 requires congress to grant copyrights which is literally a law - enforced by congress - which restricts speech.

There are similar problems with reading the most of the bill of rights
post 1689998783 09-13-2023, 12:40 PM
-
#76
  1. Abzu
  2. Registered User
  1. Abzu
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2020
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 8,174
  6. Rep Power: 47196
Originally Posted By miscinbro⏩
That’s just not true. I’ll use an example my con law professor (who clerked for Scalia btw) used. Look at the 1st “congress shall make no law” - but in article 1 section 8 requires congress to grant copyrights which is literally a law - enforced by congress - which restricts speech.

There are similar problems with reading the most of the bill of rights
Copyright laws don't limit what you can say though.
I: Self, Lord and Master.

"I rub my hands when my palms itch."

"I call you Son not because you Shine but because you Mine."
post 1689999393 09-13-2023, 12:49 PM
-
#77
  1. miscinbro
  2. Registered User
  1. miscinbro
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2016
  4. Age: 43
  5. Posts: 22,420
  6. Rep Power: 46435
Originally Posted By Abzu⏩
Copyright laws don't limit what you can say though.
Of course they do, so do trademarks.

“Clause 8 Intellectual Property
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”
post 1690000343 09-13-2023, 01:05 PM
-
#78
  1. Abzu
  2. Registered User
  1. Abzu
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2020
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 8,174
  6. Rep Power: 47196
Originally Posted By miscinbro⏩
Of course they do, so do trademarks.

“Clause 8 Intellectual Property
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;”
Trademarks don't limit your speech either, they protect the property of another individual, you are fine to express those same ideas in your own unique way.

Besides that, simply passing a law does not make it constitutional, it has to actually be constitutional.

Have American citizens ever been deported?
I: Self, Lord and Master.

"I rub my hands when my palms itch."

"I call you Son not because you Shine but because you Mine."
post 1690000683 09-13-2023, 01:12 PM
-
#79
  1. miscinbro
  2. Registered User
  1. miscinbro
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2016
  4. Age: 43
  5. Posts: 22,420
  6. Rep Power: 46435
Originally Posted By Abzu⏩
Trademarks don't limit your speech either, they protect the property of another individual, you are fine to express those same ideas in your own unique way.

Besides that, simply passing a law does not make it constitutional, it has to actually be constitutional.

Have American citizens ever been deported?
Copyright and trademark - literally - are laws that prevent everyone else from saying things. Go try to and put the words Pepsi on a can of soda or read the script of Star Wars verbatim on YouTube and tell me your speech hasn’t been restricted.

And we aren’t talking about a “law” we are talking about provisions in the US Consideration itself that are contradictory.
post 1690001333 09-13-2023, 01:23 PM
-
#80
  1. Abzu
  2. Registered User
  1. Abzu
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2020
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 8,174
  6. Rep Power: 47196
Originally Posted By miscinbro⏩
Copyright and trademark - literally - are laws that prevent everyone else from saying things. Go try to and put the words Pepsi on a can of soda or read the script of Star Wars verbatim on YouTube and tell me your speech hasn’t been restricted.

And we aren’t talking about a “law” we are talking about provisions in the US Consideration itself that are contradictory.
Starwars is proprietary, it is not free, you are free to make your own space content, you just can't steal intellectual property.

Even if what you say is true, the 1st amendment is still very clear.

The 2nd and 4th are clear as well.
I: Self, Lord and Master.

"I rub my hands when my palms itch."

"I call you Son not because you Shine but because you Mine."
post 1690001763 09-13-2023, 01:29 PM
-
#81
  1. miscinbro
  2. Registered User
  1. miscinbro
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2016
  4. Age: 43
  5. Posts: 22,420
  6. Rep Power: 46435
Originally Posted By Abzu⏩
Starwars is proprietary, it is not free, you are free to make your own space content, you just can't steal intellectual property.

Even if what you say is true, the 1st amendment is still very clear.

The 2nd and 4th are clear as well.
Congress is required to pass laws allowing people to have a literal monopoly on some speech. Nothing could be more clear that’s in direct contradiction with the literal wording of the 1st - hence it’s not clear. Unless of course you think you know more about this than the late Scalia.
post 1690005423 09-13-2023, 02:27 PM
-
#82
  1. Abzu
  2. Registered User
  1. Abzu
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2020
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 8,174
  6. Rep Power: 47196
Originally Posted By miscinbro⏩
Congress is required to pass laws allowing people to have a literal monopoly on some speech. Nothing could be more clear that’s in direct contradiction with the literal wording of the 1st - hence it’s not clear. Unless of course you think you know more about this than the late Scalia.
Lol.

Required by who?

The Constitution is very clear on speech.



It's funny how the 1st, 2nd and 4th are up for interpretation but the 14th is very clear lol.
I: Self, Lord and Master.

"I rub my hands when my palms itch."

"I call you Son not because you Shine but because you Mine."
post 1690005503 09-13-2023, 02:27 PM
-
#83
  1. Audioslave
  2. Registered User
  1. Audioslave
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Oct 2004
  4. Posts: 5,222
  5. Rep Power: 18763
Originally Posted By OGfrom06⏩
I am all for reparations if it also means settling those who receive reparations back to Africa.
OK... so now you're in favor of deporting people who actuallyareAmerican citizens. And you say the left it crazy.....
YOU ARE NOT A SLAVE
post 1690006263 09-13-2023, 02:36 PM
-
#84
  1. miscinbro
  2. Registered User
  1. miscinbro
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2016
  4. Age: 43
  5. Posts: 22,420
  6. Rep Power: 46435
Originally Posted By Abzu⏩
Lol.

Required by who?

The Constitution is very clear on speech.



It's funny how the 1st, 2nd and 4th are up for interpretation but the 14th is very clear lol.
Required by article 1 section 8 (congress) of the constitution. Well, trademarks are shoehorned in via the commerce clause but patents and copyright are right there in the language I quoted. And remember that’s the constitution’s main body. The 1st had to be written to get everyone to sign off on the constitution.
post 1690007213 09-13-2023, 02:52 PM
-
#85
  1. Abzu
  2. Registered User
  1. Abzu
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2020
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 8,174
  6. Rep Power: 47196
Originally Posted By miscinbro⏩
Required by article 1 section 8 (congress) of the constitution. Well, trademarks are shoehorned in via the commerce clause but patents and copyright are right there in the language I quoted. And remember that’s the constitution’s main body. The 1st had to be written to get everyone to sign off on the constitution.
Patents and copyrights don't limit free speech though, they protect intellectual property.
I: Self, Lord and Master.

"I rub my hands when my palms itch."

"I call you Son not because you Shine but because you Mine."
post 1690007513 09-13-2023, 02:56 PM
-
#86
  1. miscinbro
  2. Registered User
  1. miscinbro
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2016
  4. Age: 43
  5. Posts: 22,420
  6. Rep Power: 46435
Originally Posted By Abzu⏩
Patents and copyrights don't limit free speech though, they protect intellectual property.
Patents are a little different, but if you don’t understand how telling you and me we can’t speak the script of Star Wars on YouTube is a limitation on free speech you’re just too dumb or stubborn for me to spend more time on
post 1690007813 09-13-2023, 03:01 PM
-
#87
  1. Abzu
  2. Registered User
  1. Abzu
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Apr 2020
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 8,174
  6. Rep Power: 47196
Originally Posted By miscinbro⏩
Patents are a little different, but if you don’t understand how telling you and me we can’t speak the script of Star Wars on YouTube is a limitation on free speech you’re just too dumb or stubborn for me to waste more time on
I understand what you are saying, I just don't think it's not a limitation of free speech, I think it's a limitation on use of intellectual property.

If you ask the creator for permission then you can use it or you can make an offer to buy as with any property.

There is nothing stopping you from creating your own unique content which would also be your sole property.
I: Self, Lord and Master.

"I rub my hands when my palms itch."

"I call you Son not because you Shine but because you Mine."
post 1690007943 09-13-2023, 03:02 PM
-
#88
  1. Phil9
  2. Registered User
  1. Phil9
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Aug 2011
  4. Age: 39
  5. Posts: 27,396
  6. Rep Power: 35470
Originally Posted By Abzu⏩
The Constitution is very clear on speech.

Not really. Unless you are arguing "Freedom of Speech" is absolute.
post 1690007973 09-13-2023, 03:02 PM
-
#89
  1. miscinbro
  2. Registered User
  1. miscinbro
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2016
  4. Age: 43
  5. Posts: 22,420
  6. Rep Power: 46435
Originally Posted By Abzu⏩
I understand what you are saying, I just don't think it's not a limitation of free speech, I think it's a limitation on use of intellectual property.

There is nothing stopping you from creating your own unique content which would also be your sole property.

If you ask the creator for permission then you can use it or you can make an offer to buy.
Do you know what property means? It fundamentally means the right to exclude others. Speech being made property could not be any way more of a limitation on speech.
post 1690008153 09-13-2023, 03:05 PM
-
#90
  1. miscinbro
  2. Registered User
  1. miscinbro
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2016
  4. Age: 43
  5. Posts: 22,420
  6. Rep Power: 46435
Originally Posted By Phil9⏩
Not really. Unless you are arguing "Freedom of Speech" is absolute.
There is also that - it OBVIOUSLY isn’t absolute.
Quick Navigation Top Misc
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts