Trump vows to end birthright citizenship.

So if one of the members of the English crown came here and their wife dropped a kid then we could wind up with the king of England as president. Just what the NBC clause was meant to prevent. Even Obama and Ted Cruz are not NBCs. To be an NBC you must be one by natural law not one made by congress our ruled on by the courts. The founders understood natural law nowdays most do not.

 

Kim's parents being illegal or not is relevant. That is the whole premise of citizenship. His Parents were citizens..... what part of that isn't clear????

But Notice how you can't cite the court ruling that says illegal children are citizens? Why do you think that is hmmmmm?

 

children can't benefit from an illegal act of from their parents You don't understand that statement do you?

 

There goes his case

 

I have already addressed Kim so I am moving on to doe. Ok, looking Plyler v Doe let met fill you in the gaps. First off his isn’t an immigration case. . Basically the court ruled that children born outside of the US are entitled to equal protection rights. They didn’t say that they are citizens

 

Coming across the border( plyler vs doe) is very different then beaning born there(Kim) and the difference is huge. It is the talking points vie the DNC or something. I leaned this stuff in Paralegal school.

 

I speaking of the Kim case

 

Maybe they'll be appeased by Rupert's forthcoming parody of West Wing.

Since they have gone over to the entertainment side of politics (and who can blame them with the likes of McConnell and Boehner being the highest-ranking Republican politicians in the land) Wing Ding could feature an ensemble cast of their favourite out-of-work tv personalities such as Trump, Palin, Huckabee, Courser, Duggar, etc.

Hell, I'd watch it!

"What constitutional provision are you evoking when you call for stocking the Rio Grande with biologically-modified, giant piranha, El Supremo?"

...............
"All of it, moron! It's a terrific, old artifact!"


.

 

Really, I must have missed it, because not a single one has done so. You have claimed to have done so yet you can't even answer the most basics of questions let alone cite and quote correctly. Your delusional claim is

 

I know. I was speaking to both since he has tried to use both.

 

And just what do all these endorsements mean? Or have to do with the discussion? It is nothing more then you trying to invoke that anybody that agrees that illegals need to be deported are the same as White Supremacists. It's a failed strawman you've created.

 

No it isn't.

Neither of his parents were citizens.

I've cited the ruling 50 times in this thread.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes they can, plyler v doe.

- - - Updated - - -

The court clarified what subject to the jurisdiction means in plyler.

- - - Updated - - -

Numerous people have done so.

 

Who's trashing the USC? Its not being changed nor is it being amended. The issue is in the interpretation of common law which is what the 14th is merely declaratory of. Nowhere in common law does it state that children born to illegals are also born citizens, that is an assumption and projection based on the single word alien in common law. Those Enlightened White Guys didn't write the 14th, they merely wrote the DoI and the first 10 Amendments to the USC known as the Bill of Rights, they are also the ones that allowed citizenship to whites only. Again from WKA

 

It means that neo-Nazis and White supremacists like Trump's shtick.

It is revelatory that avowed racists alienated from America who would never endorse a normal American politician are enthusiastic about the reality tv entertainer because of the fantasy he spouts concerning his driving 11-12 million people out of the country.

 

John Yoo an Ultra Conservative Constitutional Scholar? He is nothing more than an attorney with a b.a. history degree.

How about a dissenting opinion from Professor Edward J. Erler of the California State University who

Jurisdiction in this since means "authority over" as Margot2 has shown, which then refers back to why can't an illegal be conscripted?

 

Very few have attempted to do so, none have succeeded. None can answer the basics of questions I posed.

 

They would never endorse a normal American politician? Hell Senator Byrd was a Grand Wizard for the KKK and was a politician for the Democrats.

 

Numerous people have done so.

 

Ok at this point you're just talking for the sake of hearing your self speak. You clearly have zero clue what you're talking about. 3 people have destroyed what you're saying. Yet you keep going on, and on, and on. You're talking out of your butt.

- - - Updated - - -

ummm no they didn't. Please feel free to show that.

 

You know were he teaches? UC Berkley? One of the top 10 liberal schools in the country.

 

Not a single one has

 

I haven't even began to blow there arguments up completely, but now I think I will. The case of Weedin vs Chin Bow from 1927 citing Justice Gray from WKA about jus soli

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/274/657/case.html

and from the 7FAM1110 page 2, the passage from WKA that the US govt uses

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf

So the govt uses the portion of WKA that includes domiciled and born of resident aliens. It nowhere includes children born of illegals, yet it still recognizes the exceptions. This policy of claiming children born to illegals are citizens, is based simply on illegals not being found as recognized exceptions yet due to no SCOTUS opinion determining it, since there has been no case as of yet brought about.

 

Robert Byrd who joined the KKK in 1944 and cast a “no” vote on the Civil Rights Act twenty years later, subsequently renounced his actions in both cases, calling his membership in the KKK ‘the worst mistake of my life.'”

He was never a KKK Grand Wizard as you falsely claim, and was never endorsed by neo-Nazis and White supremacists for the presidency like Donald Trump is being endorsed now.

It is significant that you need to go back half-a-century in your attempt to contrive a parallel, and even then you cannot find one that is true.

 

Well, considering I have Supreme Court precedent on my side.........

- - - Updated - - -

Numerous people have

 

Of which 3 people have told you what they said and provided more info on it.. That is the problem when you debate something. Both side have to be smart enough to know what they are talking about.. You want to keep going down this path, more power to do.

- - - Updated - - -

You, and the other poster and myself have shown it. But people doesn't listen do they?