SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> 14th
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1737812791

Message started by WebsterMark on 01/25/25 at 05:46:31

Title: 14th
Post by WebsterMark on 01/25/25 at 05:46:31

When we make procedural changes at work, we lay out the basic idea, and then fabricate all the possible hypothetical situations that could occur in our business, and how this new policy would change the outcome of those situations. If all the hypotheticals we can imagine are covered and satisfactorily decided in favor of our business moving forward, then the policy change is likely to be adopted. If situations arise with this new procedure that create issues, we go back to the drawing board.

So here’s my question. Per the current interpretation of the 14th amendment, let’s say a terrorist, like Osama bin Laden snuck into the United States after 9/11 with a pregnant wife, she gave birth, but died during childbirth, according to the current interpretation, that child would be a US citizen.

Is that what we as a nation, want to happen?

And i’m on not sure of all the state laws, but since bin Laden would be the sole remaining parent, what legal rights would that give him?

And I keep hearing strong language from progressive like AOC about how we shouldn’t separate children and parents in these immigration cases, so how would that affect bin Laden and his now US citizen child?

Title: Re: 14th
Post by Eegore on 01/25/25 at 05:54:34

Is that what we as a nation, want to happen?

Can't accurately say, hundreds of millions of humans create a ton of variables. I would say no, but I can't speak for the nation as a whole.

And i’m on not sure of all the state laws, but since bin Laden would be the sole remaining parent, what legal rights would that give him?

None. He was considered a criminal if you are interpreting this as the timeframe he was assigned as a "terrorist". If a single- parent human kills someone intentionally and also has a kid, they would lose their primary parenting rights and go to prison.

And I keep hearing strong language from progressive like AOC about how we shouldn’t separate children and parents in these immigration cases, so how would that affect bin Laden and his now US citizen child?

The citizen child would be remanded to State custody, no different than any other US-born child whose criminal parent that is incarcerated would be. I've heard nothing about AOC-like policy introductions that terrorists would not be separated from their children. I imagine visitation would be allowed however.

Title: Re: 14th
Post by WebsterMark on 01/26/25 at 05:34:02

These numbers are ridiculous. Biden’s legacy is one of corruption, incompetence and pardoning his fellow crime family members. And while this is horrific and forever damaging Biden name, what he did by allowing open borders will cause harm for all of us going forward several generations. I can’t believe these numbers. They’re staggering.

This birthright nonsense has got to stop right now.

The Center for Immigration Studies, a non-profit research organization that focuses on immigration, said Friday that based on its preliminary findings, there were between 225,000 to 250,000 U.S. births to illegal immigrants in 2023, which accounts for about 7% of total births in the U.S. that year.

To put the figure into context, the group says those figures are greater than the total number of births in all but two states taken individually.

Furthermore, it appears that more children were born to illegal immigrant parents than to legal noncitizens.

Although not yet available, the group says that the 2024 numbers are likely to be even higher given the surge of illegal immigrants into the country under the Biden administration.

Title: Re: 14th
Post by JOG on 01/26/25 at 09:57:47

It's not complicated. Just READ the 14th amendment. The same people who have been working to destroy America for decades Chose to Misinterpret it and use it as another tool of destruction as the liars who demanded that the constitution protects abortion.

And Subject to the Laws Thereof

That was ignored.

Here's the deal

If a woman gives birth in your house
Is that baby now a member of your family?
Of course not.
But WHY not?
You have no relationship with the mother. No legal connection.
She is not related to you and your household in any way.
So Why would you be in any way beholden to the child?
You aren't.

Title: Re: 14th
Post by Serowbot on 01/26/25 at 10:16:19

Trump just proclaimed we are all the sex were had at inception
That makes us all female
Sex isn't determined until the 6th week

You go girl :P

Do you hear the world laughing?

Title: Re: 14th
Post by JOG on 01/26/25 at 11:04:16

You should delete that and start a thread .
Or MAYBE address the topic Of This Thread.

Title: Re: 14th
Post by Eegore on 01/26/25 at 11:59:46

If a woman gives birth in your house
Is that baby now a member of your family?

Do you have to protect someone else's 1st or 2nd Amendment rights when they are on your property? Of course not, because you are not the US Government. That's why not.

"And Subject to the Laws Thereof", is actually "jurisdiction" which is most commonly interpreted in US Courts as: the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate. Unfortunately every US Court decision has considered the word "all" to mean every single one. So "All persons born" is not mitigated with any statement of exception for "persons born" from a non-US Citizen or illegal immigrant.

So are illegal immigrants subject to our laws? Can we enforce laws upon them?

Title: Re: 14th
Post by Eegore on 01/26/25 at 12:00:54

Trump just proclaimed we are all the sex were had at inception
That makes us all female
Sex isn't determined until the 6th week

I thought the same thing. If they use "inception" as the term, we will all be female.

Title: Re: 14th
Post by JOG on 01/26/25 at 13:34:29

My argument stands.

Title: Re: 14th
Post by Eegore on 01/26/25 at 16:17:16

My argument stands.

So does everyone else's.

Are illegal immigrants subject to our laws? Can we enforce laws upon them?

Title: Re: 14th
Post by thumperclone on 01/26/25 at 17:23:09

I would think so

I live in Colorado if I visit Utah, I am subject to their laws
same if I visit another country

Title: Re: 14th
Post by thumperclone on 01/26/25 at 17:26:11

5A6F7C647F787C6F791D0 wrote:

My argument stands.

you sure like to argue a lot

Title: Re: 14th
Post by Eegore on 01/26/25 at 18:19:45

I would think so

I live in Colorado if I visit Utah, I am subject to their laws
same if I visit another country

That's where the courts, all of them, utilize the logic that a human "under the jurisdiction of" is governed by the laws of the US. So the 14th applies to any human that is subject to US law.

Title: Re: 14th
Post by thumperclone on 01/27/25 at 05:27:34

no one has mentioned farmworkers

Title: Re: 14th
Post by WebsterMark on 01/27/25 at 06:27:30

786E79647C69647F0B0 wrote:

Trump just proclaimed we are all the sex were had at inception
That makes us all female
Sex isn't determined until the 6th week

You go girl :P

Do you hear the world laughing?

You don’t wanna go down that road. Because if you do, that means life begins at conception since you can identify a biological sex.

Title: Re: 14th
Post by WebsterMark on 01/27/25 at 06:31:28

1030323A2730550 wrote:

This is not necessarily true. Historically, “under the jurisdiction thereof” meant you did not have allegiance to another country. The 1968 case that changed all this had a far different set of circumstances than illegals sneaking across the border and then giving birth. The fact that we can deport people back to their home country and those countries accept them is evidence and proof that they are subject to the jurisdiction of that country. therefore, it seems logical if they were subject to Mexico, Colombia Venezuela, whatever, and they snuck across the border and gave birth that does not mean the child is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

It’s likely this will get reversed and returned to common sense when it reaches the Supreme Court.

Title: Re: 14th
Post by WebsterMark on 01/27/25 at 06:34:03

574B564E534651404F4C4D46230 wrote:

I would think so

I live in Colorado if I visit Utah, I am subject to their laws
same if I visit another country

When you visit another country, you are subject to their laws, but you are not subject to their jurisdiction, meaning you are not some kind of temporary citizen that country.
When you travel from state to state, you are subject to the laws within that state, but, regardless, you are still a citizen of the United States regardless, what state you’re in.

Title: Re: 14th
Post by Eegore on 01/27/25 at 08:44:16

therefore, it seems logical if they were subject to Mexico, Colombia Venezuela, whatever, and they snuck across the border and gave birth that does not mean the child is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Right but the 14th specifically says "All persons born" as in it applies to the child, not the parent. The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that "All persons born" means children born in the US even to immigrant parents, 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark for instance.

With jus soli and jus sanguinis having precedent it might be a hard battle. An example is if a foreign military ship is at port in the US - and a human gives birth on that ship, since it is not under US Jurisdiction, that infant is not a US Citizen.

We also can not enforce immigration laws on humans on that ship, or serving under it. We can however enforce immigration laws on illegal, and legal immigrants, because we do have jurisdiction over them. So if they have a child on US soil, that kid qualifies as "All persons born".

What's crazy to me is that people actually think the POTUS can just make executive orders changing the Constitution. Or Congress even.

Title: Re: 14th
Post by Serowbot on 01/27/25 at 09:43:16

All this is moot, being that the number is statistically inconsequential
It hurts some individuals but means nothing
So why do it?

I would call that racist
In that it's only purpose is to hurt mostly brown skinned people to no practical avail

JMHO

Title: Re: 14th
Post by WebsterMark on 01/27/25 at 16:07:19

7D6B7C61796C617A0E0 wrote:

I would call that racist
In that it's only purpose is to hurt mostly brown skinned people to no practical avail

JMHO

Oh FFS….I don’t think you would know racism if it hit you on the head. And let’s face, had Puddinhead came up with this, you’d have thought it was a great idea.

What’s racist about it? Explain that.

Title: Re: 14th
Post by WebsterMark on 01/27/25 at 16:13:28

This is simple. If neither parent are citizens of the US, then a child born on US soil is not automatically a US citizen.

Sure, there will be weird circumstances that would require special rulings but someone in the country illegally who purposely evaded procedures to enter the country legally and who gives birth, cannot claim citizenship for the child. Start there.