Quote (Santara @ Oct 2 2019 12:12pm)

It's also bullshit. Taking money out of the economy only to put it back into the economy does not a good use of money make.

Quote (Thor123422 @ Oct 1 2019 10:02pm)

Fine then, the second an illegal alien sets foot on U.S. soil they could be beaten to within an inch of their life and they would have no recourse. It's still ridiculous on it's face.

Doesn't matter, an illegal alien has almost certainly developed a sufficient connection with this country.

Quote (Ghot @ Oct 1 2019 07:53pm)

Pretty sure illegal connections with this country, don't count.

Quote (inkanddagger @ Oct 1 2019 11:02pm)

They do.

Source: I work for a law firm

Quote (Ghot @ Oct 1 2019 08:14pm)

I don't care where you work.

As I said many posts ago, there were no illegal aliens when the 14th or the 2nd amendment were ratified. So... neither could be making any reference to illegal aliens.

Quote (Santara @ Oct 1 2019 10:12pm)

It's also bullshit. Taking money out of the economy only to put it back into the economy does not a good use of money make.



That doesn't even make sense. In an environment like now, with more jobs than workers, diminishing the labor pool even further drives wages up as employers are forced to compete for scarce labor.



I fail to understand why future contributions should be counted in current cost/benefit analysis.



The thing here is, my positions on both the 2nd and 14th are grammatically correct. Your positions are both wrong.

It is redundant to state "All persons born or naturalized in the United States AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside" if "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" simply means they are subject to our laws. It would be no different than stating "All persons born or naturalized in the United States our jurisdiction and subject to the our jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State those jurisdictions wherein they reside." No, what they are indeed saying is "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof don't owe their allegiance to a foreign jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Indians owed their allegiance to their tribes, so while they were born in "our jurisdiction," they were not subjects of it. Quite clearly, the founders did NOT grant outright birthright citizenship.

Additionally, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" was written precisely because they did not want a standing army (i.e. what we now have), which spreads American imperialism all over the world in true King George III fashion. We were to be defended by the collective efforts of the people themselves, and that cannot be effected without assuring that they had access to modern weapons with which to stand against those who would use them against us. Everyone has the right. It says so right in the amendment. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say the right of the militia. It's amazing how people try to pretend all these rights limiting the power of the government to harm the people protect the individual, unless it's the 2A.



Yes please. #blackgunsmatter

Quote (Ghot @ Oct 1 2019 11:14pm)

I don't care where you work.

As I said many posts ago, there were no illegal aliens when the 14th or the 2nd amendment were ratified. So... neither could be making any reference to illegal aliens.

Quote (Skinned @ Oct 2 2019 04:55am)

When you have to type paragraphs to redefine the word AND.

The sentence isn't awkward or redundant. If you are born here and subject to the laws. No other way for this to be interpreted.

Second amendment is more poorly worded using semicolons and shit lol.

Naturalization is at least simple. One sentence captures it. People born here to immigrants do not owe allegiance to any other nation outside of the United States unless dual citizenship, which is a thing. At worse we would have a bunch of dual citizens buddy.

Quote (Santara @ Oct 2 2019 06:21am)

Except that this interpretation isn't even reasonable. And I explained why. Indians were subject to our laws. They weren't citizens.

Not poorly worded, inconveniently worded, because the left's attempts to cast it as a collective right only are shot to shit.

People born of immigrants do not owe allegiance elsewhere. People born of illegal immigrants do. Because illegal immigrants are not immigrants. They are squatters.

Quote (Santara @ Oct 2 2019 12:21pm)

Except that this interpretation isn't even reasonable. And I explained why. Indians were subject to our laws. They weren't citizens.

Not poorly worded, inconveniently worded, because the left's attempts to cast it as a collective right only are shot to shit.

People born of immigrants do not owe allegiance elsewhere. People born of illegal immigrants do. Because illegal immigrants are not immigrants. They are squatters.

Quote

Mr. Howard: “…This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every 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 very other class of persons.”

.........

Mr. Doolittle: “I presume the honorable Senator from Michigan does not intend by this amendment to include the Indians. I move, therefore, to amend the amendment—I presume he will have no objection to it—by inserting after the word “thereof” the words “excluding Indians not taxed.”

Mr. Howard: “I hope that amendment to the amendment will not be adopted. Indians born within the limits of the United States and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of the amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are regarded, and always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nations.”

Mr. Cowan: "...I would be glad if the honorable Senator in good earnest would favor us with some such definition. Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? If so, what rights have they?...... http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

Quote

...concerning the children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), three senators, including Trumbull as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the Citizenship Clause would confer citizenship on them at birth, and no senator offered a contrary opinion.