The property is thought, the product just happens to be expressed in words.I'm arguing that the 1st amendment is very clear.

Are there words you’re not allowed to say?

Is that based on congress passing laws?

Is it required in the constitution?

Yes, yes, and yes.

Lol.

The U.S. Constitution is vague for that reason.

Alrighty then. You can’t actually believe what you’re arguing anymore.

Where in the 1st Amendment does it say you can't lawfully threaten to kill someone?

Where in the 1st Amendment does it say you can't yell fire on a crowded theater as a form of creating panic?

Where in the 1st Amendment does it say you can refuse to sign up for Selective Service if you qualify with no consequences?

No you can say any words you want, you just can't use intellectual property which may be expressed in a unique sequence of words that statistically cannot be randomly replicated, if you use this property then you are stealing just as you would be if you used someones car without permission.You may not have noticed but I usually post here in short bursts while the market is open then I don't post until the next day, sometimes I don't post for days or even months.

Okay, Shekelsstein.

The 14th amendment was never intended to be applied to anchor babies and I personally don't care what it says, nor what a meaningless piece of paper says. The Supreme Court told Andrew Jackson he couldn't forcibly relocate American Indians, he did it anyway. Where there's a will, there's a way.

That being said, this isn't going to happen in 2023 America.

So Vivek and DeSantis are phonies, eh, son? That's a good start. Perhaps one day, likely a long time from now, you will realize they all are phonies - especially your boy Trump, son.

Agreed, it is crystal clear.

"The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens.That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship"

I’ll never understand this desperate grasp.

Are you arguing a baby born of illegal parents in San Diego is -not- subject to US jurisdiction? Cause I don’t think you want that.

Can you explain to this to me like i'm retarded? Srs.

I would love for birthright citizenship to end, but I just don't see how that second phrase invalidates birthright citizenship.

I agree, on face value, it appears that way, however, the original intent of the law does not include the children born to those that are here illegally. It just doesn't. Some quotes below from those who are far smarter and more knowledgeable than myself, although I have done in-depth reading/research on the matter.

"The courts have misconstrued what the writers of the 14th Amendment intended with the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and that the amendment’s framers understood that the children of illegal aliens, like their parents, owed their loyalty to a nation that wasn’t the United States. Thus, they weren’t under the jurisdiction of the United States."

"In the Slaughterhouse Cases,10 the Court wrote that “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of … citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” That is as absolute and complete a statement as can be imagined, and it would deny birthright citizenship to a child born in this country to undocumented immigrants or to a transient alien mother."

"Then, two years later, in Minor v. Happersett, the Court unanimously and expressly recognized the existence of “doubts” that citizenship was automatic for “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents,” after noting that citizenship attaches only when the immigrant owes “allegiance” to this country.11 These two Supreme Court rejections of automatic birthright citizenship for anyone born in this country, without regard to the parents’ citizenship status, are supported by facts undoubtedly known to those Justices, and certainly known to us."


Although, the jurisdiction thereof wording clearly prohibits those born here illegally from becoming America citizens, its even more damning to tourist/visa births, etc, and move back to their country of origin as there is no doubt which jurisdiction of law they are living under.

Further reading if youre interested.

https://fedsoc.org/commentary/public...o-perspectives

Right, so you ARE arguing the US doesn’t have jurisdiction over kids born to illegals here.

Wonderful. Just how dumb an argument is that?

You know where we actually see that existing. Diplomats.

“Diplomatic immunity is a principle of international law by which certain foreign government officials are recognized as having legal immunity from the jurisdiction of another country.[1][2] It allows diplomats safe passage and freedom of travel in a host country and affords almost total protection from local lawsuits and prosecution.[1]“

This just in, all children born in the US to illegal parents have almost total protection from the law.

Spoiler: RIKTER doesn't understand what jurisdiction means.

The 14th amendment does not matter, just like the Supreme Court telling Andrew Jackson what he couldn't do didn't matter, just like citizens getting deported under operation wetback didn't matter. The Constitution is a joke, it's all about what you have the will and stomach for.

Let's say Vivek or whatever President started deporting illegals and anchor babies who got birthright citizenship. He has a deportation force. They take it to court. The courts say he must stop. He keeps doing it anyway. The only recourse is to impeach him which required 2/3rds. As long as your own party has his back he can deport who he wants.

Party of law and order, right?

Any MAGA bros going to call his out?

There's an argument to be made that if you haven't assimilated then you never joined the USA. You've simply been acting in a refugee capacity.

I dont have to argue that because those who wrote the 14th made that argument. Again, when this was written in 1866, the justices clearly indicated/meant, that the children born on American soil to those who are not American citizens were under the same jurisdiction as their parents country of origin as far as citizenship.

Now, I noticed you skipped over the of tourist/visa births whose children are considered American citizens, because even under the lefts dishonest interpretation of jurisdiction(as its meaning in 1866) those kids are not living under American jurisdiction. Are they too American citizens. For anyone reading this, this is where they get exposed.Just the opposite, I completely understand what it meant at the time it was written. There's no ambiguity.

Remember folks, these are the same people who are trying to change the meaning/intent of,a well regulated militia.

You really don’t have any idea what jurisdiction is, do you?And what’s that? Please no long copy/pasta. Your own words.

I do as it was written in 1866.

You replied as I was editing. Please see the post again.

The fact you were trying to interpret jurisdiction based on the status of indians [A special case as even the U.S. Constitution mentions several times] shows you definitely don't know what jurisdiction means.

You are talking about spirit of the law as opposed to letter of law, the two should be congruent and when they are not, the law becomes unclear.

This spirit vs letter goes back to biblical times, Jesus viewed those who use the letter of the law to obscure the spirit unfavorably.

I'll go deeper into the topic later tonight or tomorrow.



Letter and spirit of the law
The letter of the law and the spirit of the law are two possible ways to regard rules, or laws. To obey the letter of the law is to follow the literal reading of the words of the law, whereas following the spirit of the law means enacting the intent behind the law.Although it is usual to follow both the letter and the spirit, the two are commonly referenced when they are in opposition."Law" originally referred to legislative statute,[citation needed] but in the idiom may refer to any kind of rule.

Intentionally following the letter of the law but not the spirit may be accomplished through exploiting technicalities, loopholes, and ambiguous language.

William Shakespeare wrote numerous plays dealing with the letter-versus-spirit antithesis, almost always coming down on the side of "spirit",often forcing villains (who always sided with the letter) to make concessions and remedy.In one of the best known examples, The Merchant of Venice, he introduces the quibble as a plot device to save both the spirit and the letter of the law. The moneylender Shylock has made an agreement with Antonio that if he cannot repay a loan, he will have a pound of flesh from him. When the debt is not repaid in time Portia at first pleads for mercy in a famous speech: "The quality of mercy is not strain'd, It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest: It blesseth him that gives and him that takes." (IV,i,185).When Shylock refuses, she finally saves Antonio by pointing out that Shylock's agreement with him mentioned no blood, and therefore Shylock can have his pound of flesh only if he sheds no blood.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter...rit_of_the_law

lol You got me, usually after 1PM I log into my NoLibs, NYPat or Sillie accounts and post leftist ideology lol, then I rep myself lol.

I have several times. Under jurisdiction was meant to apply to American citizens, not migrants passing thru, etc especially those who came illegally. Their children, even though born here fall under the same jurisdiction as their parents. They are not separate entities under the law.

Proponents of the broad view of birthright citizenship also err in asserting their premise that two clauses of the Amendment section that contains the Birthright Citizenship provision—“within the U.S.” and “subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction”—are synonymous as applied to illegal and transient immigrants. But the Amendment’s authors, in fact, made clear that they did not believe that “subject to [U.S.] jurisdiction” meant the same as “within the U.S.” In the same section of this Amendment, it guaranties “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The “within” phrase was defined by co-author Senator Howard as meaning “all persons who may happen to be within their jurisdiction,” meaning that anyone physically present must be treated equally under our laws. In contrast, the Court has stated and later reaffirmed that “subject to jurisdiction” means much more: “owing … direct and immediate allegiance. No allegiance, and certainly not immediate allegiance, is given by a parent who, following birth, returns with her newly born baby to live in the country of her citizenship; nor does one who remains here in violation of law show such allegiance.

In 1873—only five years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment—the U.S. Attorney General provided an official government opinion: “The word ‘jurisdiction’ must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of the amendment. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction only to a limited extent. Being subject only to a limited extent does not meet the requirement of “absolute and complete jurisdiction” necessary to obtain citizenship.

Funny, I missed where it said "absolute and complete jurisdiction" in the 14th Amendment. I guess it's easy to make an argument when you just non-existent language to the amendment.

Seems you are arguing letter of the law and spirit of the law are in sync, even better.

I don’t want to read copy/pasta from the Federalist Society. Just explain it in your own words.