Jump to content

Illegals coming to this country to have kids will end


HSFBfan

Recommended Posts

Ok so here it is and there are significant differences

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898),[1] is a United States Supreme Courtcase in which the Court ruled 6–2 that a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese nationality who at the time had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and were carrying on business there but not as employees of the Chinese government, automatically became a U.S. citizen

Permanent domicile which none of these illegals have. So right there this case does not apply to the illegals. 

That case will not help support your argument 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

Ok so here it is and there are significant differences

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898),[1] is a United States Supreme Courtcase in which the Court ruled 6–2 that a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese nationality who at the time had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and were carrying on business there but not as employees of the Chinese government, automatically became a U.S. citizen

Permanent domicile which none of these illegals have. So right there this case does not apply to the illegals. 

That case will not help support your argument 

There usually are differences. That's what the courts are for.

But you're not getting any closer to refuting my claim that the law, as it's currently interpreted and practiced and enforced, is that a child born here is a citizen of this country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Belly Bob said:

There usually are. That's what the courts are for.

But you're not getting any closer to refuting my claim that the law, as it's currently interpreted and practiced and enforced, is that a child born here is a citizen of this country. 

I just proved to you that the law you gave me in that case does not pertain to the illegals having kids here. Read the case man. 

This guys parents had a permanent domicile here. These illegals do not. His parents were citizens of this country. These illegals are not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

I just proved to you that the law you gave me in that case does not pertain to the illegals having kids here. Read the case man. 

I'm sorry. You misunderstood me. I said that that case has been used by the courts to justify the claim that the law requires that we grant citizenship to children born here. 

Apologies if that wasn't clear. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Belly Bob said:

I think you're getting confused again.

That's not my argument. That's the argument given by the courts, whose current practice is to grant citizenship to children born here. 

And that is why the EO is written and signed so someone can look at this. You cannot look at the case that you provided to me and say that it pertains to illegals. Again this is why it has to be challenged. If the SC upholds it so be it. I'll disagree with the ruling but that's my right to do so. But this case does not provide any parallel to the illegals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said this is the same argument when it came to the travel ban. People jumped up and down as it got turned down in the liberal circuits. When it got to the SC the travel ban was ok and will now be used to stop the illegals from getting into the country. 

This EO will be challenged Trump knows that. I'm sure he knows the outcome of the case too if/when it gets to the SC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

And that is why the EO is written and signed so someone can look at this. You cannot look at the case that you provided to me and say that it pertains to illegals. Again this is why it has to be challenged. If the SC upholds it so be it. I'll disagree with the ruling but that's my right to do so. But this case does not provide any parallel to the illegals. 

Wouldn't it better, though, if you just got to the point and gave an argument for why we should grant citizenship to these people and not to those people, or for why the law should be this way rather than that way? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

Wouldn't it better, though, if you just got to the point and gave an argument for why we should grant citizenship to these people and not to those people, or for why the law should be this way rather than that way? 

We grant citizenship to people who apply for citizenship.  The guy we were just referring to had american citizens has parents. 

Illegal parents should not be allowed to just spit out a kid who all of a sudden is a citizen. That makes no sense. And than what if they have no money american taxpayers are on the hook. 

Me and you can make a million arguments. Its gonna come down to the supreme court which favors Trump. 

Why dont these illegals do what these chinese people did? Come here as an american citizen work get a permanent residence

And I thought I was at the point. You gave my said case...I showed you why said case doesnt work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, HSFBfan said:

We grant citizenship to people who apply for citizenship.  The guy we were just referring to had american citizens has parents. 

Illegal parents should not be allowed to just spit out a kid who all of a sudden is a citizen. That makes no sense. And than what if they have no money american taxpayers are on the hook

Me and you can make a million arguments. Its gonna come down to the supreme court which favors Trump. 

[...]

Sorry. We grant citizenship to some people who apply for it and to some children who are born here. And we are on the hook for them, too, as tax payers if they have no money.

So, once again, why these people and not those people?

We want to give and evaluate arguments because we want to know what the truth is, and we don't want other people to do our thinking for us, because we aren't children but men. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

Sorry. We grant citizenship to some people who apply for it and to some children who are born here. And we are on the hook for them, too, as tax payers if they have no money.

So, once again, why these people and not those people?

We want to give and evaluate arguments because we want to know what the truth is, and we don't want other people to do our thinking for us, because we aren't children but men. 

Because some people do it the right way and other people think they are going to crash our borders and were gonna roll out a welcome mat. Nope not happening. 

Listen if you want my true opinion our borders should be completely shut down until every single illegal is found and deported. And every businessman who hired an illegal is locked up and every truck driver who has every helped an illegal is locked up as well. 

Than when those millions of people are finally deported and our immigration laws are fixed and placed like Ellis island are reopened we can discuss maybe letting people in. 

Now as much fun as that was and I had an absolute blast having this magnificent debate with you I gotta go. Happy Halloween. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2018 at 12:48 PM, HSFBfan said:

A. Because some people do it the right way and other people think they are going to crash our borders and were gonna roll out a welcome mat. Nope not happening. 

B. Listen if you want my true opinion our borders should be completely shut down until every single illegal is found and deported. And every businessman who hired an illegal is locked up and every truck driver who has every helped an illegal is locked up as well. 

Than when those millions of people are finally deported and our immigration laws are fixed and placed like Ellis island are reopened we can discuss maybe letting people in. 

C. Now as much fun as that was and I had an absolute blast having this magnificent debate with you I gotta go. Happy Halloween. 

A. What's at issue is what makes it the right way in the first place.

B. Sorry. I'm having a hell of a time. There's a difference between supporting your opinion with reasons and stating it. I'm not asking you to state your opinion. I think it's pretty clear. I'm asking you to support it. To support your opinion with reasons is to give an argument for it.

C. Happy Halloween to you also. And I'm sure we will be able to pick the debate up again, since it makes into the OT forum about twice per week.

Maybe one day we will get the arguments up, and see what they look like, and not just state the opinions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Drummer61 said:

Yes, HSFB should run for office for the ALT RIGHT....🤙🤙🤙🤙 PS all the Jews in Florida better not vote for the Marxist Guillum as he's an anti Semite too.....He has spoken for CAIR calling them a terroist  state and hates that Jerusalem is their capital.....He a crook and the liberal Miami Herald has stated as much.....

I thank you for the endorsement!!!!! I will put all my effort into ending illegal immigration, ending Obamacare, ending birthright citizenship, upholding our 2A and just being a red blooded american 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...