The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
The courts have repeatedly held that when a statute is clear and unambiguous, the inquiry into legislative intent ends at that point. It is only when a statute could be interpreted in more than one fashion that legislative intent must be inferred from sources other than the actual text of the statute.
-wiki
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Of course not ... when the 14th was passed there was no such thing as birth tourism or illegal immigrants... because anyone who showed up (aside from diplomats) could be a citizen. I doubt you really want the immigration system they intended then, because it was open borders.
Of course not ... when the 14th was passed there was no such thing as birth tourism or illegal immigrants... because anyone who showed up (aside from diplomats) could be a citizen. I doubt you really want the immigration system they intended then, because it was open borders.
So you don't believe in judicial intent? That's your argument then. Most people do.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
People that are claiming that he is repealing the law are full of it. He's interpreting the law, as the executive branch does when it is ambiguous. It's part of the process. Then the courts rule on it. If they rule against the President Congress can then make a new law.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
So no law makers ever passed any law intending to give illegal immigrants the right to citizenship for their babies. What happened is people started interpreting the law that way. So the President absolutely has the authority to give an EO on this issue.
Illegal immigration didn't exist when the 14th amendment was ratified because the USA had open borders. The first federal restriction on immigration, the Page Act of 1875, banned Chinese women from entering the United States. So yes, when birthright citizenship was passed into law it could not have possibly have been intended to cover children of illegal immigrants, nor could it have been intended to exclude them.
I think it was judges not just 'people' interpreting it
It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O
Of course not ... when the 14th was passed there was no such thing as birth tourism or illegal immigrants... because anyone who showed up (aside from diplomats) could be a citizen. I doubt you really want the immigration system they intended then, because it was open borders.
Actually, a "sorjourner" is a tourist. It could also reasonably interpreted to mean an illegal alien as well.
The authors of the 14th said they did not mean it to include sorjourners. Thus why the courts ruled allegiance to the US was the primary test. That got lost some where in the 20th century.
He would (in the hypothetical of overseas birth) have to prove blood relation, write a letter promising to provide for Baron until 18 yo. And likely show his tax returns. Writing and disclosing are things he struggles with.
Illegal immigration didn't exist when the 14th amendment was ratified because the USA had open borders. The first federal restriction on immigration, the Page Act of 1875, banned Chinese women from entering the United States. So yes, when birthright citizenship was passed into law it could not have possibly have been intended to cover children of illegal immigrants, nor could it have been intended to exclude them.
Yet the children of illegal immigrants never had birthright citizenship until the 1950s or 1960s. We don't know exactly when people started giving them birthright citizenship. They were granted birthright citizenship by the executive branch, not the legislative branch, and the judiciary branch never ruled that they had birthright citizenship according to the law.
Since the executive branch made this decision the executive branch can also decide not to give children of illegal immigrants birthright citizenship.
I drank beer. I like beer. I still like beer. ... Do you like beer Senator?
- Justice Brett Kavanaugh
Comment