Trump and the 14th amendment.

[Aeson]

So according to Kid ... the Wong case was in 1898 which was before the 1880s? WTF? Does Kid think we are talking about BCE?

[Aeson]

Even if that were true Aeson is against the process that the courts commonly use to interpret laws.

I am not the one arguing that the Court ruling was wrong.

As for the intent of the authors of the 14th amendment, I’d be happy to apply it to our immigration policy. They clearly framed the 14th in regard to open borders. The entire concept of illegal immigration runs contrary to it.

[Kidlicious]

I am not the one arguing that the Court ruling was wrong.

You're arguing that they intended to give the children illegal aliens birthright citizenship when no such people existed at the time. That's impossible.

As for the intent of the authors of the 14th amendment, I’d be happy to apply it to our immigration policy. They clearly framed the 14th in regard to open borders. The entire concept of illegal immigration runs contrary to it.

Of course they were for open borders. That's how they took all the land away from the Native Tribes. The Natives were not down with open borders though.

[Kidlicious]

I can't find any proof that there were any illegal immigrants before 1970, although I'm sure there were some after 1924.

[Dinner]

You just spoke about Wong in 1898! He was an illegal alien, you stupid ****!

[Kidlicious]

That's not what the SC aaid

[Aeson]

You're arguing that they intended to give the children illegal aliens birthright citizenship when no such people existed at the time. That's impossible.


Of course they were for open borders. That's how they took all the land away from the Native Tribes. The Natives were not down with open borders though.

No you’re the one guessing at their intent. I’m stating the obvious fact that they did not except illegal aliens babies. They didn’t. Whether or not they would have intended to if there had been such a thing is not clear, but they were operating in a system that wouldn’t have made them illegal in the first place.

[Ming]

You did not prove that most people don't believe in the intention of the law.

I don't have to... I never "CLAIMED" one way or another.
Only you did... and you still haven't backed it up, so it's just another pulled out of your ass statement, like usual.

[Kidlicious]

No you’re the one guessing at their intent. I’m stating the obvious fact that they did not except illegal aliens babies. They didn’t. Whether or not they would have intended to if there had been such a thing is not clear, but they were operating in a system that wouldn’t have made them illegal in the first place.

Look. Do you assume that they intended to give the children of an invading army birthright citizenship?

[Kidlicious]

I don't have to... I never "CLAIMED" one way or another.
Only you did... and you still haven't backed it up, so it's just another pulled out of your ass statement, like usual.

if it's what courts use to interpret the law then most of them probably believe in it. If they didn't they would change the method. What's stopping them?

[Aeson]

Do you assume that they intended to give the children of an invading army birthright citizenship?

I don’t assume. The issue with foreign military is settled, they are excepted as are diplomats. That you equate illegal aliens with an invading army again clearly shows your xenophobia.

[Ming]

if it's what courts use to interpret the law then most of them probably believe in it. If they didn't they would change the method. What's stopping them?

Now it's "probably"...
Prove your statement... oh, that's right, you can't. As usual, you are just pulling stuff out of your ass and making stuff up.

[Kidlicious]

I don’t assume. The issue with foreign military is settled, they are excepted as are diplomats. That you equate illegal aliens with an invading army again clearly shows your xenophobia.

No it doesn't. Stop smearing. I didn't equate all illegal immigrants to invaders. I simply asked you a question. You damn well did assume that the Supreme Court would approve of illegal aliens coming here to have babies for the citizens to pay for.

[Kidlicious]

Now it's "probably"...
Prove your statement... oh, that's right, you can't. As usual, you are just pulling stuff out of your ass and making stuff up.

That's right. It is probably.

[Kidlicious]

Doesn't even matter. Lawmakers did not intend to grant birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, PERIOD. They intended to grant birthright citizenship to former slaves. Not difficult.

[Kidlicious]

And diplomats have a legal right to be in the country. So no, invading armies are not diplomats. They do not have diplomatic status. They are here illegally!

[Aeson]

What are you blabbering about now?

[Dry]

... That might actually unwind two or even three generations of people who came here illegally and that seems like a scary barrel of fish to me.

I could definitely see Republicans liking the idea of making most hispanics noncitizens though as it makes their reelections so much easier.

Wouldn't the Ex post facto principle apply ? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law)
Technically speaking, the ruling of the court is not a law. And I don't know what is needed for a ruling to be applied. An 'act'? A 'law'?

While American jurisdictions generally prohibit ex post facto laws, European countries apply the principle of lex mitior ("the milder law"). It provides that, if the law has changed after an offense was committed, the version of the law that applies is the one that is more advantageous for the accused. This means that ex post facto laws apply in European jurisdictions to the extent that they are the milder law.

[Kidlicious]

Exactly. You can't take people's citizenship away.