doublegunshop.com - home Forums DIALOG RE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

Yeah, we're doing great idiot. Chronic hidden high unemployment, wage stagnation due to massive illegal immigration and foolish trade deals, the Middle East is a disaster, We can't beat a little 50-75,000 man army called ISIS, race relations are at a 50 year low, we have a record National debt and massive deficit, over 200 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities, Health Care costs still rising faster than inflation...

Shall I go on idiot? Or are you happy with your anti-gun Obama like your anti-gun pals King and Jagermeister are?

Look at King Pinnochio Brown wringing his hands over Trump while he has offered up unwavering support for the inexperienced loser Obama who is leaving the whole nation in ruins.

But King can always and only be counted upon to support and defend Liberal Left Democrat Anti-gunners. He tries to lie to us and say he is pro-gun, but except for owning some guns... if we can believe him... everything he does is that which undermines gun rights in this country. He does nothing to advance gun rights in Canada. It is probably a blessing for Canadian gunner that he does nothing. With his great leadership and his LULLING concessionary advice, they would soon lose what gun rights they still have.

Craig I gave your question short shrift. I left the answer with the query about the children of foreign diplomats, thinking someone would would take up the answer. Here's a more complete answer regarding the question of birth citizenship which I posted on another forum:

Glad to know that The Donald has said he would not mount a 3rd party campaign. Still, his possible nomination as the republican candidate is problematic in my mind. He has gained a lot of traction on his position on birth citizenship. I think that is an issue for the Courts to unravel and not a reason for any legislative attempt to amend the 14th.

The issue will turn on the qualifier phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". As worded the 14th Amendment makes all born on American soil citizens by birthright. There were three carve-outs to that right: children of foreign diplomats, enemy soldiers, and American Indians who were still, at the time considered semi-sovereigns and self governing. In 1898 the Supreme Court in US Vs. Wong Kim Ark determined that the jurisdiction phrase meant subject to the laws of the USA. It would appear that since then, both illegal immigrants and American Indians qualify for birth citizenship.

I suppose a new "final" decision on the matter could find illegal aliens not subject to our jurisdiction since we don't know they're here, but they are certainly subject to our laws. JMHO but I don't think it is likely that the courts will change anything or that anything should be changed.

Just close the border and enforce our laws...Geo

Who isn't subject to our laws besides those with diplomatic immunity? There are Constitutional lawyers who are arguing that the Framers intent concerning the word Jurisdiction differed from the current interpretation.

At any rate, Mike is correct that the parent who is illegal should still be subject to the law and deported. The 14th does not grant amnesty to the non-citizen parent. The criminal parent is highly unlikely to leave without the child. Then it becomes a matter of amending the amendment to avoid future abuse and confusion. And the question becomes... will it be ratified by 2/3 of the States, or will the people continue to permit lawbreakers to steal their jobs, rob them of their tax dollars, increase their Health Care costs, create wage stagnation, etc.? Open borders sounds nice on paper, but the true costs are becoming more apparent to more people by the day.

Thank goodness we have someone paying attention to the threat from the north.....(sarcasm for those not familiar the common literary device)


http://news.yahoo.com/walker-says-wall-canadian-border-worth-reviewing-132533027.html

If anyone is interested:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

Read this too. The author of the Citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment explained what the words said and what they meant:

http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-morr...itutional-right

Geo, you ended up offering a bunch more time than I was figuring you might. I noticed keith put up a link, I don't know what it says yet, but that case you mentioned seems to be the case that sets the precident.

I guess what I was wondering was if the typical anchor baby mom, which makes up about eight percent of all US births, is an integrated productive person residing in the US, or one of the catch alls mentioned later in an opinion and not part of the decision.

You're an idiOt...

Well I see I was correct in that any exchange with you soon ends up in childish name calling.

Maybe you could articulate for me the case for building a wall on the Canadian border? It is the most asinine idea I have heard in some time in my opinion. Please go ahead and lay out a well reasoned argument for the implementation of such a wall. I'm an open minded guy about this J0e. I dying to hear your well thought out response..........