tvc184

The Supreme Court has never ruled on birthright citizenship for people illegally in the country. People who support birthright citizenship almost always point to Wong Kim Ark as the defining case demanding it. After reading Ark (a long time ago), that doesn’t seem to be the conclusion that the Supreme Court decided. In Elk v. Wilkins 14 years after the Fourteenth Amendment the Supreme Court ruled that a Native American born on US soil in what is now called the lower 48 contiguous states, was not an American at birth. Why? Because he owed allegiance to a sovereign Indian nation, the Winnebago. In owing allegiance to a foreign nation, in this case on US soil, did but fit the meaning in the Fourteenth Amendment of being subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Was Elk subject to US laws? Absolutely. If new committed theft, murder, not paying taxes, etc., he was subject to American laws. The Supreme Court decided that didn’t fit the meaning of being subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Along came Wong Kim Ark not long afterwards. Ark was born in the US to parents were subject to the Emperor of China. Like Elk, Ark owed allegiance to a foreign nation. So what was different? Wong Kim Ark’s parents were here legally and had submitted to US jurisdiction by being granted permanent residency and by running a business with the consent of this nation and the state. Again, Wong Kim Ark’s parents were given lawful permanent residence in this country before he was born. That was sufficient for being subject to the jurisdiction of the US. But let’s not take my word for it. Let’s see what the Supreme Court said in their concluding statement in the case making Wong Kim Ark a citizen, …….who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. Order affirmed Note that the Supreme Court makes notice that the family are subjects to a foreign jurisdiction, the Emperor of China… BUT have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, again, their quote. is that the same as illegal entry into this country, as many people claim? If the Supreme Court intended for every person born on US soil to be citizens, why wasn’t that their decision? Why did the Supreme Court bring up the family being subject to the Emperor of China but it changed because they were given a permanent residence in the US? Hmmmm…. Because they thought it mattered perhaps? This was a precedent setting case and the Supreme Court was well aware of it. TheIr final statement could have simply been, “any person born on US soil is a citizen”. Nope, the Supreme Court worded the decision how it was asked. Was Wong Kim Ark a citizen? Yes as his family was given permanent residency under US law. In my opinion the Supreme Court has not ruled on people in this country unlawfully. In fact in the case of Elk, he was in this country lawfully and was still denied citizenship at birth. What in Wong Kim Ark overturned that? In my opinion, nothing. So we will finally have a ruling on birthright citizenship. Like I have already said in this forum, I feel like the Supreme Court will say that birthright citizenship is constitutional and that will put that issue away. Looking at Supreme Court precedent, it doesn’t appear to be so definitive as some people claim.

I am not bothered in the least. Trump started saying stupid crap in 2016 when he announced that he was running for president. It’s been 10 years and he hasn’t stopped. So what? He is a school yard bully. He’s the guy that if you have done something good, he has done it twice and did it better than you buddy times. Do you lose sleep over that? I have absolutely despised some people politically and don’t like hearing about their deaths. As an example I did not like Supreme Court Justice RBG. When she passed away I did but cheer as some people. I would rather she resigned from the Court when she found out that she had a terminal condition and lived out her last couple of years in peace. She didn’t but I didn’t cheer her death either publicly or privately. Others did but it is no different than when Charlie Kirk was assassinated or Rush Limbaugh died. Such stupid public behavior is not limited to one side if the aisle and in my opinion it is far more prevalent from the left. Far more…. Is it presidential? Not in the least. Since when has Trump been presidential? I want the border closed. I want to have a strong military. I want the government to be aggressive deporting illegal aliens. I want the federal government to stop with trying to disarm America. I don’t want men showering with women in school or college sports. I don’t want men playing in women’s sports leagues. I want essential services from the federal government like the TSA and HLS opened up and pay those critical workers while the parties argue over non-essential issues. None of that even closely would happen had Trump lost the election. The Democrats are obsessed with Trump’s demeanor while ignoring virtually everything else. That’s why Trump won the last election. NEWSFLASH: Trump can’t run again! The left is still obsessed with his words. In 2 years and 10 months at the most, Trump is gone from politics and for better or worse, we will all move on. Ten years after he announced his bid for the presidency, the left seems stunned that Trump has made a crude statement. 🤣🤣🤣 The often calls of the Trump cult are equally hilarious. The only true cult is the other side of the aisle who hangs on a lame duck president’s latest comment which is almost certainly made to enrage them. It works!!! But again, I couldn’t care any less about Trump’s crude comment. I would never make such a statement and I don’t support it. I do care completely about the political issues that I posted and others. So keep letting Trump live rent free in your head. I am sure that new appreciated it! 😂😂😂

Trump said something stupid and crude. I’m shocked!!

Great diversion! 🤣 I clearly ended with they all need to be reigned in. If you can’t comprehend that, they are all equally guilty. It also shows the disingenuous title of the debt “surges past $39T”. That surge must have started 5 years ago…. But we won’t count that, right? 😎

I merged identical topics.

SURGES PAST $39T!! Wow! But let’s do a quick Google/AI search. National Debt by year: 2020, the last full year Trump was in office. ND increased by $1.49T 2021 or Biden’s first year in office increases $2.45T in a single year or almost double Trump’s last year in office. 2022 it increased $2.24T. 2023 it increased $2.33T 2024 it increased $2T Now in the first year of Trump’s second term the ND increased $2,35T. So which year was this dramatic surge again? I think they all need to be reigned in but pointing out Trump seems disingenuous at best.

The House Democrats can’t block anything.

Neither of your follow ups addressed my comment. I made no prediction nor refuted any of the current polls posted this thread. I only noted that you apparently scour the internet trying to find another person’s comment that agrees with your own. You can post whatever but none of the claimed blowout of Cornyn has happened. Zero….. So yet again you are referring to someone else’s opinion or poll to back up your beliefs. It is having an opinion and then trying to find a comment that backs up your pre-determined beliefs. That’s okay. I will refer back to my comment a year ago that said it is tough to beat an incumbent no matter what the polls say. To date I have been correct…. you haven’t, not even once. Don’t count your chickens before they hatch. It is like a guy who predicts who will be in the Super Bowl and for 20 years has been wrong every time. Then after two decades of failure, his prediction is correct and he says, “See, I told you!!”. My only prediction to date is that it is tough to beat an incumbent. I gave the example of KBH whose early poll showed that she would annihilate Perry. I am fairly certain that anyone reading this thread would agree that Cornyn to date has been a tough opponent. Let me guess, you will again search the internet high and low to find another poll that has nothing to do with this comment. 😎 And for a side note, I voted early and for Paxton. I don’t think he will be the best choice to beat the Democrats. He carries too much baggage. I don’t believe politically slanted polls however. I also believe that the Democrats might come out to support Paxton in order to eliminate Cornyn. Anyone who didn’t vote in the Democrat primary is eligible to vote in the runoff.

You started this thread almost a year ago. The article that you led off with has one poll showing Paxton up as much as 40% and crushing Cornyn. A day later I said not so fast. It is hard to beat an incumbent. As an example I gave the gubernatorial race between Kay, Bailey Hutchison and Rick Perry. I think she was up about 25 points a year out, was a very popular US senator and had all the big names pushing for her. Perry beat her in the primary. Hutchison went from a 20+% point lead to a loss. A month later, you posted an article that said “Texas sized trouble for Cornyn”as a headlines and Paxton with a double digit lead A month later the article was Cornyn trounced by Paxton. We could go on but I believe the point has been made. All of the double digit leads completely went away and in truth, Cornyn beat Paxton in the primary. It was by only 1% but Paxton’s double digit lead (as much as 40%) evaporated and he edged into second place behind Cornyn. Now apparently, Paxton has already won. Yesterday you posted a poll that showed Cornyn lost support (42% to 41%) from the primary so none of the undecided and all of the votes for Hunt went to Paxton. The article that you posted now has Paxton with a 1% advantage if Cornyn got the Trump endorsement. The rumors are that Trump is about to endorse Cornyn. If that happens, by your article, it shows the race well within the margin of error. So for now, Cornyn has “already lost the run-off”. The bottom line is that nothing that you have posted for a year has been correct. Not only did Paxton not crush Cornyn, he lost to him in the primary. Yes it was by a mere percentage point but that’s a far cry from a 15% to 40% crushing loss by Cornyn. Paxton may very well gain the needed votes to win. I doubt that Cornyn will lose votes as the article you posted suggests however. Oddly, Paxton’s biggest ace in the hole could be the Democrat supporters not wishing to face Cornyn.

It should not be that hard to address the topic and not another member. It’s not like accidentally blurting something out in a conversation. It’s typing and you have time to go back and look at it. Not that my opinion matters but I am not a fan of calling people out with the @ symbol. If that person feels like responding he/she will. That person may not even want to read that thread. There is no need for @someone and @you and ask what do you think of YOUR guy now. Post your comment and if no one wants to answer, great. But, that’s just an opinion That is not the same as calling a mod/admin’s attention to something or asking another person an educational question like @bullets13 to ask about being a teacher and/or the rules they follow. It’s really not that hard.

There is almost no way that they reverse birthright citizenship. It is one of the few times that this court will use interest balancing to get away from any original context.

I am not sure how many people actually understand. The War Powers Act or the Constitution. That is especially true for the politicians who claim that it was unconstitutional to strike Iran. I would like to think that the politicians know that they’re lying to the public and just playing politics but the problem is that much of the public doesn’t know that they’re lying or maybe are actually that ignorant.

Tell me where I am wrong without your spin. Maybe you could Google an answer and see if someone else came up with something better than you did. How many times in five years has a president, has Trump fired someone and then created a new program just for that person to keep her in the loop?

Seriously, what does his comment have to do with the First Amendment?

Hardly fired. She wasn’t good on public statements or talking when confronted with questions she wasn’t expecting. Typically, when Trump fires someone, they leave immediately and usually with a bad statement from Trump, about how the person was not loyal, incompetent, etc. In this case Noem become the head of an entirely new program dealing with regional defense strategies. If I was to ever get fired in such a case, I would love it to be by going from the head of one program and being reassigned to the head of another program. Apparently Trump liked her political stance and opinions enough to placing her at the head of a program dealing with American defense.