Donate!
Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register :: View Members
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print
Supreme Court this week (Read 160 times)
Eegore
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 9269

Re: Supreme Court this week
Reply #15 - Yesterday at 05:28:11
 
Just because the jurisdiction argument has failed, doesn’t mean it’s wrong.

 Agreed.  It just doesn't not work.  It's an argument with zero successful outcomes.  



It’s right, but the political willpower hasn’t been there before. Maybe it is now. The case around 1900 that establish this birthright principle was just simply decided wrong.

 I think it was decided correctly for its time.  Today however it is abused and is unsustainable.  




As evidence, when someone is deported, they are sent back to their home country who generally accept them. If that’s not evidence that they’re subject to the jurisdiction of another nation, I don’t know what it is.

 Except they are also under US jurisdiction while on US soil.  Or can tourists just do whatever they want and ignore US laws?  The problem with continuing to use that argument is it doesn't work.  It's never worked, simply because jus soli and jurisdiction in US law is very specifically interpreted, combined with precedence, it's been a losing argument, every single time.
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
WebsterMark
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 13993

Gender: male
Re: Supreme Court this week
Reply #16 - Yesterday at 06:11:25
 
There’s a difference between following the law and being under a nation’s jurisdiction isn’t there?
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
Eegore
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 9269

Re: Supreme Court this week
Reply #17 - Yesterday at 09:11:44
 

There’s a difference between following the law and being under a nation’s jurisdiction isn’t there?

 Yes.  When a human is on US soil they have to follow the laws, they are also under the jurisdiction of the US legal system unless they are from a ship in port, or a Diplomat with active diplomatic immunity.  

 So for illegal immigrants, when they arrive in US territory they are under US jurisdiction as in a specific court or legal authority has the power and right to make decisions and exercise control over any particular situation, person, or territory.  Illegal immigrants can be arrested, tried, and incarcerated for crimes here because they are under our jurisdiction.  
 

Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
WebsterMark
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 13993

Gender: male
Re: Supreme Court this week
Reply #18 - Yesterday at 09:37:25
 
Under the jurisdiction thereof, has to (should) mean more than just being legally obligated to following local laws. Otherwise, what was the point of excluding Indians? They excluded them because they were under the jurisdiction of their local tribes.

An illegal immigrant, who sneaks into the country, has a baby and then claims citizenship for that child, just doesn’t seem to fit with the bigger concept of under the jurisdiction thereof.

The Chinese case in the early 1900s that was the foundation for birthright citizenship, seems to, in my opinion, was decided with poor logic. The parents had been in the country for years. Perhaps it’s a case where a certain amount of time qualifies you as being under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
Serowbot
YaBB Moderator
ModSquad
*****
Offline

OK.... so what's the
speed of dark?

Posts: 29381
Tucson Az
Gender: male
Re: Supreme Court this week
Reply #19 - Yesterday at 11:16:53
 
When Republicans say they want us to have more babies...
They mean white babies
It's just hard to say that out loud

Back to top
 
 

Ludicrous Speed !... ... Huh...
  IP Logged
Eegore
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 9269

Re: Supreme Court this week
Reply #20 - Yesterday at 12:21:08
 
Under the jurisdiction thereof, has to (should) mean more than just being legally obligated to following local laws. Otherwise, what was the point of excluding Indians? They excluded them because they were under the jurisdiction of their local tribes.

 They excluded them because they didn't want them to be US citizens.  The SCOTUS stated in 1831 for Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Peters) 1, tribal governments are not US "States" Constitutionally, and they are not "Foreign States," in regard to Article III original jurisdiction.

https://www.fjc.gov/history/timeline/cherokee-nation-v-georgia

 Jurisdiction applies to Tribal Lands.  I imagine if an illegal immigrant was on Tribal Lands they would be under the jurisdiction of that tribe.  At that point the The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 would have to be taken into consideration.  

 Yet another example of how this jurisdiction argument, in court, goes nowhere.  Native Americans are specifically recognized as being under the jurisdiction of their Tribal Court/Laws if you will, and also every single one born is a US Citizen, simply for being born on US soil.  Jus Soli again.

 


An illegal immigrant, who sneaks into the country, has a baby and then claims citizenship for that child, just doesn’t seem to fit with the bigger concept of under the jurisdiction thereof.

 Except every single court ruling has said they are.  Not one case exists that says otherwise.  


The Chinese case in the early 1900s that was the foundation for birthright citizenship, seems to, in my opinion, was decided with poor logic. The parents had been in the country for years. Perhaps it’s a case where a certain amount of time qualifies you as being under the jurisdiction of the United States.

 This would be an argument that uses a logic other than the consistently defeated, as in always, every time, argument of jurisdiction.  Time-based evaluation would be an updated, and in my opinion, needed change.  
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
WebsterMark
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 13993

Gender: male
Re: Supreme Court this week
Reply #21 - Yesterday at 18:04:38
 
Serowbot wrote on Yesterday at 11:16:53:
When Republicans say they want us to have more babies...
They mean white babies
It's just hard to say that out loud



You’re wrong. I want America babies. Babies whose parents understand America. We don’t need any more pu$$ified emasculated liberal males and we don’t need anymore Democratic Karens.
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
thumperclone
Serious Thumper
Alliance Member
*****
Offline

PGR rider  riding
with respect

Posts: 6956
Grand Junction Colorado
Gender: male
Re: Supreme Court this week
Reply #22 - Yesterday at 18:08:12
 
WebsterMark wrote on Yesterday at 18:04:38:
Serowbot wrote on Yesterday at 11:16:53:
When Republicans say they want us to have more babies...
They mean white babies
It's just hard to say that out loud



You’re wrong. I want America babies. Babies whose parents understand America. We don’t need any more pu$$ified emasculated liberal males and we don’t need anymore Democratic Karens.



don't need any more MAGA nutjobs or felonious presidents that married an imported wife
Back to top
 
 

standing for those who stood for US
















  IP Logged
zevenenergie
Serious Thumper
*****
Online

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 1899
The Netherlands   Den Haag
Re: Supreme Court this week
Reply #23 - Today at 01:36:30
 
It is good to look at where the real problems are and do something about them.
I am working with a group of 60 people on a large project. And if they all make their emotional contribution or are concerned with their own interests, you will get nowhere.
So we have a very clear structure of speaking out directly, being mature and taking responsibility.
There is no place in the group for people who do not resonate with reality because of old childish delusions. And we are very fanatical about that. Because our goal is to create an ashram for people who feel the calling to be free from such delusions.

If you have an abusive mother, Maga is a big trigger for you. So you throw everything that Magma represents overboard.
But there is an immature childish psychology behind that.

I see in my own country how the current asylum policy seriously undermines society.

And yet we cannot change the laws because a group of left-wing politicians who are addicted to power and do not want to deviate from their non-functioning moralistic positions.
They experience all criticism as an attack on their position of power. And because the entire group thinks this way, they are trapped in a fixed ideology, and anyone who deviates from it is a threat and is out. So there is no self-healing capacity.

These politicians are talented, multi-faceted people, but all their energy goes into these power games and therefore they do not function and society is disrupted by it.

A solution could then be to play a Trump card. And sweep it with a coarse broom.

The population in the Netherlands has long since given its vote, electing politicians who want to implement a rock-hard asylum policy.

But the new government is being successfully sabotaged by this non-functioning group of left-wing politicians and their powerful network.

You can say "Maga idiocy" because it reminds you of your mother, but the situation in the country cries out for a fitting answer to the derailment that is taking on very serious forms.

Such psychology is not innocent.
You are sabotaging, causing delays and frustration and confusion because you introduce ideas that do not correspond to the reality of the situation.

The world needs grounded, mature souls.
Spirituality is always practical.


And this goes for both sides of the political spectrum.
We need to come to a well-functioning society because healthy well-functioning people have a greater chance of escaping the delusions of their identified thinking.
Creating trauma over and over again keeps humanity captive.
Back to top
 
 

Do what you know is right. (you can always use fear as a counselor later)
  IP Logged
JOG
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 2149
Longview, Texas
Gender: male
Re: Supreme Court this week
Reply #24 - Today at 02:15:49
 
You are sabotaging, causing delays and frustration and confusion because you introduce ideas that do not correspond to the reality of the situation.

The lens we choose to view reality through determines our understandings.
The leftards use a prism.
They get a rainbow, instead of a logically distilled understanding.
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
WebsterMark
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 13993

Gender: male
Re: Supreme Court this week
Reply #25 - Today at 04:08:11
 
An illegal immigrant, who sneaks into the country, has a baby and then claims citizenship for that child, just doesn’t seem to fit with the bigger concept of under the jurisdiction thereof.

Except every single court ruling has said they are.  Not one case exists that says otherwise.  


But it’s coming.
Back to top
 
 
  IP Logged
zevenenergie
Serious Thumper
*****
Online

SuzukiSavage.com
Rocks!

Posts: 1899
The Netherlands   Den Haag
Re: Supreme Court this week
Reply #26 - Today at 04:59:00
 
What we have here is that an asylum seeker who has passed a left-oriented assessment criteria, is allowed to bring his entire family from abroad. Note that they get housing, a full income, with health care and a social worker who solves al problems for them.
Waiting lists for housing or other facilities do not apply to them. They get priority boarding for free.

It is like putting a vacuum cleaner on a third world country.
And the vacuum cleaner bag is a reception camp.
There they  have to wait to see if you are allowed to stay in the country.

The majority of people do not pass the selection and disappear into anonymity here. That is to say, into crime, because in a well-organized society like ours you cannot earn money in a normal way without registering in the population register.


If you think that is a good policy then you should vote left in the next elections.
Back to top
 
 

Do what you know is right. (you can always use fear as a counselor later)
  IP Logged
thumperclone
Serious Thumper
Alliance Member
*****
Offline

PGR rider  riding
with respect

Posts: 6956
Grand Junction Colorado
Gender: male
Re: Supreme Court this week
Reply #27 - Today at 05:55:23
 


The lens we choose to view reality through determines our understandings.
The leftards use a prism.
They get a rainbow, instead of a logically distilled understanding. [/quote]

logically distilled understanding enables the shootings in Minnesota and Idaho
the creation of a swamp base Alcatraz
adding trillions to the deficit
threating our allies like Greenland and Canada
creating ICE gestapo
lots of logic NOT
Back to top
 
 

standing for those who stood for US
















  IP Logged
MnSpring
Serious Thumper
*****
Offline

Younger than most
people my age.

Posts: 10064
Minn
Gender: male
Re: Supreme Court this week
Reply #28 - Today at 06:12:04
 
thumperclone wrote on Yesterday at 18:08:12:
"... nutjobs or felonious presidents that married an imported wife "


WOW !!!!!
What an absolute Liberal,
Raciest, Bigoted, Intolerant, statement.


Grin
Grin
Grin
Grin
Grin
Grin
Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin



Back to top
 
 

Ben Franklin once said: "If you give up a freedom, for the sake of security, you will have neither".
Which is More TRUE, today, than yesterday.('06, S-40, Stock) well, mostly .
  IP Logged
thumperclone
Serious Thumper
Alliance Member
*****
Offline

PGR rider  riding
with respect

Posts: 6956
Grand Junction Colorado
Gender: male
Re: Supreme Court this week
Reply #29 - Today at 07:42:52
 
MnSpring wrote on Today at 06:12:04:
thumperclone wrote on Yesterday at 18:08:12:
"... nutjobs or felonious presidents that married an imported wife "


WOW !!!!!
What an absolute Liberal,
Raciest, Bigoted, Intolerant, statement.


Grin
Grin
Grin
Grin
Grin
Grin
Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin






Melina gained her citizenship status under false pretenses
Back to top
 
 

standing for those who stood for US
















  IP Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 
Send Topic Print


« Home

 
« Home
SuzukiSavage.com
07/01/25 at 08:44:48



General CategoryPolitics, Religion (Tall Table) › Supreme Court this week


SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2!
YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved.