Trump called birthright citizenship "ridiculous" and said that "it has to end."

[steve4102]

This has already been decided by the Supreme Court.

President Trump for the win.

Elk v. Wilkins

 

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884),^[1] was a United States Supreme Court case respecting the citizenship status of Indians.

John Elk, a Winnebago Indian, was born on an Indian reservation and later resided with whites on the non-reservation US territory in Omaha, Nebraska, where he renounced his former tribal allegiance and claimed citizenshipby virtue of the Citizenship Clause.^[2] The case came about after Elk tried to register to vote on April 5, 1880 and was denied by Charles Wilkins, the named defendant, who was registrar of voters of the Fifth ward of the City of Omaha.

The court decided that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe when he was born rather than to the U.S. and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born.

[Dric902]

5 hours ago, steve4102 said:

This has already been decided by the Supreme Court.

President Trump for the win.

Elk v. Wilkins

 

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884),^[1] was a United States Supreme Court case respecting the citizenship status of Indians.

John Elk, a Winnebago Indian, was born on an Indian reservation and later resided with whites on the non-reservation US territory in Omaha, Nebraska, where he renounced his former tribal allegiance and claimed citizenshipby virtue of the Citizenship Clause.^[2] The case came about after Elk tried to register to vote on April 5, 1880 and was denied by Charles Wilkins, the named defendant, who was registrar of voters of the Fifth ward of the City of Omaha.

The court decided that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe when he was born rather than to the U.S. and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born.

When did Indians become US citizens?

A: "Yes, American Indians are citizens of the tribal group of which they are a member. American Indians became citizens of the U.S. in 1924 through the American Indian Citizenship Act and are also citizens of the state in which they reside.".

 

indians were not included in the Emancipation Proclamation and interestingly weren’t people legally until 1924 this was after WWI that many of them had fought in

 

Bill of Rights protections do not apply to tribal governments, except for those mandated by the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968.

.

Edited November 1, 2018 by Dric902

[fortyofforty]

Those who are arguing the nuances, ask them this hypothetical question:  If a pregnant woman jumps over the back wall at a United States embassy compound in a foreign country, then gives birth, is that baby a citizen of the United States?

[Ricordo]

Quote

a pregnant woman... at a United States embassy compound in a foreign country, then gives birth, is that baby a citizen of the United States?

I can say this. A very well-esteemed foreign employee at a US military base somewhere out there, started giving birth. Nobody was going to throw her out, she gave birth at the base caringly assisted by US medical personnel. By all accounts, the child was considered a US citizen.

Yes, cigars were distributed.

[Ricordo]

Did a little research and thought it over to be more specific.

First. Any well-versed immigration lawyer knows to ask a prospective client if he/she/it was born inside a US military base. Not kidding.

Second, regarding embassies, the land (territory) belongs to the host country. It is not US territory.

Third but not least. In Tampa, Florida there is a piece of land (about 3'x4', 6'x8' ?) that is considered territory of Cuba. The only instance in the US where a foreign country has territorial sovereignty. So technically,  a child of  American citizens born  there could claim dual citizenship. ?

[Jammersix]

None of you would be citizens. I like it.

[Dric902]

7 hours ago, Jammersix said:

None of you would be citizens. I like it.

Oh, the misplaced Europeans that were run out of every civilized country in the world......wrote the rules for the place they ran to.

So they are citizens. It’s the people who were already living there for centuries that weren’t human beings until 1924.

 

.

[Jammersix]

By that logic, as soon as the caravan makes it here, they're citizens, too!

[Dric902]

3 hours ago, Jammersix said:

By that logic, as soon as the caravan makes it here, they're citizens, too!

Uh,....born here

 

they will not be allowed to cross the border.....so we are going to build a tent city to house them when the cross the border

 

makes sense somehow

 

.

Edited November 3, 2018 by Dric902

[fortyofforty]

On 11/2/2018 at 11:18 AM, Ricordo said:

Did a little research and thought it over to be more specific.

First. Any well-versed immigration lawyer knows to ask a prospective client if he/she/it was born inside a US military base. Not kidding.

Second, regarding embassies, the land (territory) belongs to the host country. It is not US territory.

Is that not also the case with a U.S. military base?  Does that territory not also belong to the host country?

[fortyofforty]

20 hours ago, Jammersix said:

By that logic, as soon as the caravan makes it here, they're citizens, too!

As long as they vote, Democrats will be fine.

[Ricordo]

24 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Is that not also the case with a U.S. military base?  Does that territory not also belong to the host country?

There's a difference where the land is leased, like Guantanamo, for instance. We are just lessees there.

There's probably a map somewhere detailing all US military bases and installations in this planet. Bunch of red dots in all the weirdest places. Most are commonly known. Be they aboveground, underground, or a mix. 

Remember, until fairly recently Area 51 was officially  just a vast expanse of nothingness.

[Dric902]

SOFA agreements between countries pertaining to military bases cover an amazing number of things, usually stuff that has happened at least once.

births, deaths, crimes on and off base, DUIs, domestic violence, searches, defendants issues with crime and condition.

 

its not as easy as “ours and theirs”

 

.

Edited November 4, 2018 by Dric902

[Al Czervik]

On 11/1/2018 at 12:34 AM, Dric902 said:

I keep hearing this;

We don't do stunts in this department. Thank you," Mattis told a reporter who posed the question after a Pentagon meeting 

 

But if you send 800, or 1500, or 50,000.

you can’t get past the “yeah but”

Federal law prohibits the military from acting as a domestic police force, which means the troops going to the border cannot detain immigrants, seize drugs from smugglers or have any direct involvement in stopping the caravan. Instead, their role largely will mirror that of the existing National Guard troops, including providing helicopter support for border missions, installing concrete barriers and repairing and maintaining vehicles.

I understand firing up the base.....but be honest about it

 

.

Yes, but the military certainly may be employed to repel an invasion or terrorists.  What constitutes an invasion?  How many suspected terrorists must there be?

 

 

Interesting read on some of the history:

 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a472386.pdf

[fortyofforty]

3 hours ago, Ricordo said:

There's a difference where the land is leased, like Guantanamo, for instance. We are just lessees there.

There's probably a map somewhere detailing all US military bases and installations in this planet. Bunch of red dots in all the weirdest places. Most are commonly known. Be they aboveground, underground, or a mix. 

Remember, until fairly recently Area 51 was officially  just a vast expanse of nothingness.

The point is that the underlying territory does not belong to the United States.  We are guests or lessees, not owners of the territory.  Legally, as far as I can see, there is absolutely no difference.  The question remains:  if you jump the wall at an embassy compound and pop out a baby, is that baby an American citizen?  From what the Fascists say, yes, always.  And sign the baby up for social assistance immediately.

[Dric902]

4 hours ago, Al Czervik said:

Yes, but the military certainly may be employed to repel an invasion or terrorists.  What constitutes an invasion?  How many suspected terrorists must there be?

 

 

Interesting read on some of the history:

 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a472386.pdf

Not an invasion

not a terrorist attack

not an armed military force

jaywalking is not tresspassing

speeding is not vehicular homicide

left isn’t right, even if you turn around

up isn’t down, even when you stand on your head

black isn’t white, no matter who says it is

 

troops can build tents, repair vehicles, and stick their fingers up their backsides. But they can arrest, detain, capture, hold, fire on anybody.

if you send a squad, battalion, brigade, division, corps or the entire military branch. All your doing is spending money to deploy and redeploy. The whole “if they throw a rock, we will treat that as a firearm” comment lasted about an hour before it was walked back.

and campaigning for the midterms continues

 

.

 

 

Edited November 4, 2018 by Dric902

[Moeman]

Maybe, just maybe ... we should be more concerned about our troops protecting opium fields in an insipid never ending war. George Orwell is turning in his grave. The hidden  ones, making billions.

 

cuase let’s see... immigrants likely to go back to an artic shelf, gave us important stuff, like pizza, tacos, built the railroads etc... 

[fortyofforty]

26 minutes ago, Moeman said:

Maybe, just maybe ... we should be more concerned about our troops protecting opium fields in an insipid never ending war. George Orwell is turning in his grave. The hidden  ones, making billions.

 

cuase let’s see... immigrants likely to go back to an artic shelf, gave us important stuff, like pizza, tacos, built the railroads etc... 

Maybe, just maybe we should be more concerned about how former President Obama allowed our troops to protect opium fields so he could allow his friends to make billions.

Personally, I'll take immigrants who gave us railroads, automobiles, airplanes, and computers over immigrants who gave us human sacrifices on sun temples and low cost lawn care.  But maybe that's just me.

[TX OMFS]

"Rather than demonizing the president or caricaturing his position, let’s have a substantive debate.
There are as many as 400,000 children born every year who the hardworking U.S. taxpayers have to educate, and for whom they provide health care and food stamps. The Center estimates that the annual cost to the U.S. taxpayers of children born to illegal immigrants is a staggering $2.4 billion.
Do you think our veterans, homeless and inner-city school children could use that money?"
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/laura-ingraham-why-are-dems-so-afraid-of-a-conversation-about-birthright-citizenship

I think the people who earned that money could use it. Everyone else can get a job.

[Dric902]

50 minutes ago, fortyofforty said:

Maybe, just maybe we should be more concerned about how former President Obama allowed our troops to protect opium fields so he could allow his friends to make billions.

Personally, I'll take immigrants who gave us railroads, automobiles, airplanes, and computers over immigrants who gave us human sacrifices on sun temples and low cost lawn care.  But maybe that's just me.

Gave us human sacrifices? Who gave you a human sacrifices?

protecting opium fields to allow friends to make billions? 

 

 

Listening to too many talking points makes you like this

Pizzagate anyone?

 

.

[Al Czervik]

3 hours ago, Dric902 said:

Not an invasion

not a terrorist attack

not an armed military force

jaywalking is not tresspassing

speeding is not vehicular homicide

left isn’t right, even if you turn around

up isn’t down, even when you stand on your head

black isn’t white, no matter who says it is

 

troops can build tents, repair vehicles, and stick their fingers up their backsides. But they can arrest, detain, capture, hold, fire on anybody.

if you send a squad, battalion, brigade, division, corps or the entire military branch. All your doing is spending money to deploy and redeploy. The whole “if they throw a rock, we will treat that as a firearm” comment lasted about an hour before it was walked back.

and campaigning for the midterms continues

 

.

 

 

I'll believe you when you quote what law says expressly, as you maintain, that our military may only do what you say.  

Are you stating that we have never before sent armed troops, even garrisons, to the Mexican border to secure it?  Or, even sent them across the border?  

 

[Dric902]

1 minute ago, Al Czervik said:

I'll believe you when you quote what law says expressly, as you maintain, that our military may only do what you say.  

Are you stating that we have never before sent armed troops, even garrisons, to the Mexican border to secure it?  Or, even sent them across the border?  

 

Before the civil war, before the Passé Cumitatas (sic) act we were free to do so. 

when Pancho Villa crossed the border, we retailiated with the putative raid. That was not considered an invasion as he was also wanted by the Mexican government. More of a cross border law enforcement action. On their side. Not ours.

we already have many agreements for cross border law enforcement. Criminals who flee across the border in either direction. Fugitives, international criminals, etc.

these people don’t fall into that category as far as any authority is going to declare. Including ours

 

.

[Al Czervik]

9 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

Before the civil war, before the Passé Cumitatas (sic) act we were free to do so. 

when Pancho Villa crossed the border, we retailiated with the putative raid. That was not considered an invasion as he was also wanted by the Mexican government. More of a cross border law enforcement action. On their side. Not ours.

we already have many agreements for cross border law enforcement. Criminals who flee across the border in either direction. Fugitives, international criminals, etc.

these people don’t fall into that category as far as any authority is going to declare. Including ours

 

.

 I speak not of Pancho Villa nor USC known as Posse Comitatus.  Again, give me the statute.  

Let's just, for amusement's sake, say the Sandinistas regrouped, formed an invasion force and traveled through mayheeco unimpeded, and showed up at our southern border.  Do you maintain that our CINC has not the authority to deploy whatever armed troops/air assets necessary to repel the invasion and annihilate them?

[Dric902]

36 minutes ago, Al Czervik said:

 I speak not of Pancho Villa nor USC known as Posse Comitatus.  Again, give me the statute.  

Let's just, for amusement's sake, say the Sandinistas regrouped, formed an invasion force and traveled through mayheeco unimpeded, and showed up at our southern border.  Do you maintain that our CINC has not the authority to deploy whatever armed troops/air assets necessary to repel the invasion and annihilate them?

You mean a state owned, armed, trained, organized, commanded military force?

the armed forces of a foreign nation?

yes.

 

now please, explain to me how the caravan is just that.

 

.

[ItnStln]

On 10/30/2018 at 6:02 PM, SevenSixtyTwo said:

Maybe President Trump should call it "Common Sense Imigration Laws" so the Democrats can get on board or drop that stupid ****. If the 2nd Amendment can be butchered, the 14th can be clarified.

Indeed