Subject:



Not redefining.

Link plox

Doesn't address their children who we are talking about either.

I'm not arguing about making American citizens out of all illegal immigrants but you're arguing against that I feel like.

This post was edited by Skinned on Oct 2 2019 05:11am

Dude, I'm on my phone. Googled "subject" and grabbed the definition I knew would be there.

Again though I'm not arguing about making illegal immigrants American citizens. I'm talking people who are born in the United States.

Remember Elian Gonzalas? People were so against sending him back to Cuba even though he came here illegally. Things have changed lol.

I copy pasted the definition earlier in the thread from the dictionary. It probably has a legal definition, a term of art they call it, I'll check that. If you're interested in a correct answer. I'm a pragmatist so I'm not as married to my positions as you are.

This post was edited by Skinned on Oct 2 2019 05:15am

How can someone misinterpret their own words?

Of course it addresses their children. People born here (we'll call them children) AND subjects of our jurisdiction.

Illegal immigrants children are subjects of their parents' jurisdictions.

"well organized militia"

Stop it. That would create a dual citizen situation like it always has up until now. Already a process and framework for this. And its old.




Defined here as people with guns in their house no further criteria..

This post was edited by Skinned on Oct 2 2019 05:22am

The people questioning Senator Howard (who wrote it) are misinterpreting him. He wrote the Civil Rights Act as well. He clearly intended to exclude Indians and children of citizens of foreign jurisdictions.



Born here of parents who are subjects of a foreign jurisdiction are not citizens.

You're using tautology though and other arguments are much more compelling, such as textual legal interpretation and historical based arguments.

This post was edited by Skinned on Oct 2 2019 05:24am