ADVERTISEMENT

"And will, to the best of my ability"

SKYDOG said:
So what is your complaint on this?
Click to expand...
Seriously? You guys float through life accepting everything trump does is fine without question?

Read the 14th amendment to the CONSTITUTION. You know, that document you guys bring up all the time but apparently are unaware of what it says.
 
BB62 said:
"Preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America."

Unless it's something to do with immigration of course.

www.whitehouse.gov

Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship – The White House

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1.
www.whitehouse.gov
Click to expand...
what rights does someone have who breaks our laws? Illegals shouldn't be afforded rights since they came here illegally.
Claiming asylum....Fine, go through the proper channels, you might just not be able to get a free ride here while awaiting to go through the process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Indy_Rider, Boilermaker03, pboiler18 and 2 others
  • Like
Reactions: Riveting and Boilermaker03
BB62 said:
"Preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America."

Unless it's something to do with immigration of course.
Click to expand...
I was an active duty US Army officer for 28 years. Here is the Oath of Office taken by all military members:

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Do you understand the word "domestic"? There are some woke assclowns who have been spreading childish lies that the Constitution prohibits using US troops within the US. It does not. Think about the Civil War for a couple of seconds.

There is nothing wrong with using US soldiers to protect our southern border from illegals. In fact, how would you prefer the 82nd Airborne spend its time: guarding our southern border or hanging around Fort Bragg playing war games and drinking beer?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Riveting, Boilermaker03 and bonefish1
BB62 said:
Seriously? You guys float through life accepting everything trump does is fine without question?

Read the 14th amendment to the CONSTITUTION. You know, that document you guys bring up all the time but apparently are unaware of what it says.
Click to expand...
I read what you posted. I must be missing what you have an issue with. What is it?
 
I guess I have to explain to the MAGA elite.

Trump takes the oath of office, swearing before his God (like he knows something about his work) to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

A few hours later, he signs an EO that is intended to take away a right laid out in a constitutional amendment whose meaning has never changed.

In case you still haven't read the info in my post this is about birthright citizenship.

Stop trying to change the argument. My point is clear.
 
BB62 said:
Seriously? You guys float through life accepting everything trump does is fine without question?

Read the 14th amendment to the CONSTITUTION. You know, that document you guys bring up all the time but apparently are unaware of what it says.
Click to expand...
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." Here is the key phrase: " . . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . ."

Now, if Costa Ricans Jose and Juanita cross our border illegally and Juanita has a kid drop out of crotch, is that kid "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US? Are the non-citizen parents subject to the jurisdiction of the US? This is why we have a Judicial Dept. They interpret the law. You don't decide the issue, the courts do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joetboiler, bonefish1 and SKYDOG
BB62 said:
In case you still haven't read the info in my post this is about birthright citizenship.

Stop trying to change the argument. My point is clear.
Click to expand...
It is not clear, you racist assclown. The courts will decide if anchor babies are US citizens.
 
Quix0te said:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." Here is the key phrase: " . . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . ."

Now, if Costa Ricans Jose and Juanita cross our border illegally and Juanita has a kid drop out of crotch, is that kid "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US? Are the non-citizen parents subject to the jurisdiction of the US? This is why we have a Judicial Dept. They interpret the law. You don't decide the issue, the courts do.
Click to expand...
Yes the legal challenge is the very point of this EO. You keep playing checkers and leave this to the adults.
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: Riveting and Boiler Buck
Quix0te said:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." Here is the key phrase: " . . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . ."

Now, if Costa Ricans Jose and Juanita cross our border illegally and Juanita has a kid drop out of crotch, is that kid "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US? Are the non-citizen parents subject to the jurisdiction of the US? This is why we have a Judicial Dept. They interpret the law. You don't decide the issue, the courts do.
Click to expand...
Didn't say I decided anything Rambo. But the amendment has been interpreted the same way for over 150 years.

You'd lose your freakin mind if a president put out an executive order trying to change the 2nd amendment.........which is a hell of a lot more vague than the 14th.

Where was this during trumps first term? I guess it wasn't a priority until trump realized it made all you goose steppers giddy.
 
BB62 said:
Didn't say I decided anything Rambo. But the amendment has been interpreted the same way for over 150 years.

You'd lose your freakin mind if a president put out an executive order trying to change the 2nd amendment.........which is a hell of a lot more vague than the 14th.

Where was this during trumps first term? I guess it wasn't a priority until trump realized it made all you goose steppers giddy.
Click to expand...
Where was it in the first term? Trump didn't have this massive mess created by Biden in his first term. Now he has to deal with a problem Biden exacerbated. And he's doing it for you Bob. He's doing it for what's best for American taxpayers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tjreese and Riveting
bonefish1 said:
Where was it in the first term? Trump didn't have this massive mess created by Biden in his first term. Now he has to deal with a problem Biden exacerbated. And he's doing it for you Bob. He's doing it for what's best for American taxpayers.
Click to expand...
What you're saying is it wasn't a political issue he could play you on in the first term. It wasn't any different then than now. If it's wrong now why wasn't it wrong then? You're admitting the reason it's being brought up now is because of the border.
 
Quix0te said:
The 14th has been challenged repeatedly over the 249-year history of our nation, example below:

www.cbsnews.com

U.S. birthright citizenship established by 1898 San Francisco case involving Chinatown resident

Universal birthright citizenship has long been considered a constitutional right that got its start in San Francisco, thanks to a gutsy young man in Chinatown.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
Click to expand...
Uh ok. Apparently it's been repeatedly defeated.

I'm not arguing trump doesn't have the right to challenge. Why don't you people stop reading what you want into posts? Trump loves for frivolous court challenges. His lawyers are getting filthy rich.

I'm saying stop waving the Constitution and then seek to change or undermine it. Hours after swearing allegiance to it trump seeks to change it.
 
BB62 said:
I'm saying stop waving the Constitution and then seek to change or undermine it. Hours after swearing allegiance to it trump seeks to change it.
Click to expand...
Well, I'd argue that Trump is seeking neither to change nor undermine it. The courts intrepret the law. Trump wants clarificationon concerning what the 14th actually says. It is not crystal clear and as I mentioned previously, the phrase " . . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . ." certainly creates some wiggle room.

I'm sure the Founding Fathers did not envision foreign citizens having anchor babies any more than they envisioned an FAA. If the courts rule against Trump, he'll probably seek a constitutional amendment. This is the kickoff, not the end of the 4th qtr.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BoilerHuff3
Here is the thing that cracks me up about anyone going off about the Constitution, it only applies to US citizens. If you are not a US citizen, you aren't afforded the rights it puts out.

The parents are not US citizens. Also keep hearing about free speech and Tik Tok, the company is not a US company, so again, not afforded the rights.

So, it's really pretty simple, want to be guaranteed the rights of the constitution, become a US citizen and be afforded all the rights the rest of us get to enjoy.

And as far as Birth Right citizenship. This is one of the few times where the constitution didn't keep up with time. At the time it was written, travel took far longer making it pretty impractical for people to try and travel to the US just for the purpose of giving birth to try and be able to claim citizenship for their kids. As travel became easier and far cheaper, it become a business and people trying to use a loophole in the system that probably does need fixed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bonefish1, BoilerJS, Quix0te and 1 other person
BB62 said:
I guess I have to explain to the MAGA elite.

Trump takes the oath of office, swearing before his God (like he knows something about his work) to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.

A few hours later, he signs an EO that is intended to take away a right laid out in a constitutional amendment whose meaning has never changed.

In case you still haven't read the info in my post this is about birthright citizenship.

Stop trying to change the argument. My point is clear.
Click to expand...
Just because you're born in this country to foreign parents WHO ARE HERE ILLEGALLY should not make you an American Citizen with all rights and privileges .
 
  • Like
Reactions: tjreese, bonefish1 and SKYDOG
BB62 said:
What you're saying is it wasn't a political issue he could play you on in the first term. It wasn't any different then than now. If it's wrong now why wasn't it wrong then? You're admitting the reason it's being brought up now is because of the border.
Click to expand...
true or false: The influx of illegals was higher or lower with Biden than Trump?
T/F: Our border situation was better/worse under Biden than Trump?
 
Indy_Rider said:
Here is the thing that cracks me up about anyone going off about the Constitution, it only applies to US citizens. If you are not a US citizen, you aren't afforded the rights it puts out.

The parents are not US citizens. Also keep hearing about free speech and Tik Tok, the company is not a US company, so again, not afforded the rights.

So, it's really pretty simple, want to be guaranteed the rights of the constitution, become a US citizen and be afforded all the rights the rest of us get to enjoy.

And as far as Birth Right citizenship. This is one of the few times where the constitution didn't keep up with time. At the time it was written, travel took far longer making it pretty impractical for people to try and travel to the US just for the purpose of giving birth to try and be able to claim citizenship for their kids. As travel became easier and far cheaper, it become a business and people trying to use a loophole in the system that probably does need fixed.
Click to expand...
Exactly!
I always have to laugh when I hear about "Illegal immigrant rights" or "criminal rights".
Hey buddy, you broke the law.....you surrendered most of your rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Indy_Rider
BB62 said:
Yeah yeah yeah. Talk about Bob. That way you don't have to talk about the issue.
Click to expand...
It's all about you, Bob. Isn't that what you want?

I am free to talk about the issue or not. I believe firmly in free will.
 
BB62 said:
Yeah yeah yeah. Talk about Bob. That way you don't have to talk about the issue.
Click to expand...
OK, so what issue has you upset today with Trump?
The mass deportations?
The elimination of DEI in the federal govt?
The idea of buying Greenland?
 
Quix0te said:
Well, I'd argue that Trump is seeking neither to change nor undermine it. The courts intrepret the law. Trump wants clarificationon concerning what the 14th actually says. It is not crystal clear and as I mentioned previously, the phrase " . . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . ." certainly creates some wiggle room.

I'm sure the Founding Fathers did not envision foreign citizens having anchor babies any more than they envisioned an FAA. If the courts rule against Trump, he'll probably seek a constitutional amendment. This is the kickoff, not the end of the 4th qtr.
Click to expand...
Excellent piece today in the WSJ on the 14th.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tjreese

Potential assassination attempt on Trump and 35 other government officials

Replies
4
Views
579
Free Board: General Discussion Forum
tjreese
tjreese
TwinDegrees2

J6 Bombshell: Trump Didn't Just Offer Military to Protect Capitol, He Ordered It but Was Disobeyed

Replies
59
Views
2K
Free Board: General Discussion Forum
BB62
BB62
tjreese

Harris Campaign Website Adds "Policy" Platform Page

Replies
3
Views
418
Free Board: General Discussion Forum
TwinDegrees2
TwinDegrees2
Boiler Buck

Why each of these two deeply flawed candidates will lose this election....

Replies
9
Views
971
Free Board: General Discussion Forum
Quix0te
Q
tjreese

DHS Puts Secret Service in Charge of Security of Electoral College Vote Count Process. No, Really.

Replies
0
Views
1K
Free Board: General Discussion Forum
tjreese
tjreese
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back