End od Anchor babies

@no1marauder said
The only issue according to the Amendment is whether these persons when born are "within the jurisdiction of the United States." Gray's opinion makes clear they are subject to all the laws, civil and criminal, of this country, so that issue was decided 126 years ago.

Note. Gray is only opining, just like we are. That is what is fun about debates. I sure do wish Sonhouse could adopt our method of debating.
So, since not even gray can make a firm decision, that means that our opinions all of them have some merit. Which gets me back to common sense since even gray cannot even get the law straight… Common sense tells us that someone cannot be illegal and domiciled at the same time. Especially when he is hiding.

Common sense must prevail!

@AverageJoe1 said
Note. Gray is only opining, just like we are. That is what is fun about debates. I sure do wish Sonhouse could adopt our method of debating.
So, since not even gray can make a firm decision, that means that our opinions all of them have some merit. Which gets me back to common sense since even gray cannot even get the law straight… Common sense tells us that someo ...[text shortened]... illegal and domiciled at the same time. Especially when he is hiding.

Common sense must prevail!

Gray made a firm and binding decision for the SCOTUS in 1898.

Try to follow.

@no1marauder said
The only issue according to the Amendment is whether these persons when born are "within the jurisdiction of the United States." Gray's opinion makes clear they are subject to all the laws, civil and criminal, of this country, so that issue was decided 126 years ago.

I haven't read up on it yet, but does the case address whether a non-citizen in the US can be compelled to join the US army if drafted, or punished for treason? It seems logical the answer to both of those should be no.

@no1marauder said
Gray made a firm and binding decision for the SCOTUS in 1898.

Try to follow.

I'm not reading legal decisions, and I only said that he opined becuae what you wrote said it was an opnion of Grey. I'm simply opining on an opinion. YOu know, 99% of the time the judges have different 'opinions', so that is wat WE are doing, opining. YOu think a guy who is an illegal can be considered domiciled, while I say, hmmmmm, then why is he hiding. We are like the 5-4 decisions!! Drived from opinions!! Gray opined!!!!

@no1marauder said
Gray made a firm and binding decision for the SCOTUS in 1898.

Try to follow.

illegal alien birthright has never been heard by scotus

@AverageJoe1 said
I'm not reading legal decisions, and I only said that he opined becuae what you wrote said it was an opnion of Grey. I'm simply opining on an opinion. YOu know, 99% of the time the judges have different 'opinions', so that is wat WE are doing, opining. YOu think a guy who is an illegal can be considered domiciled, while I say, hmmmmm, then why is he hiding. We are like the 5-4 decisions!! Drived from opinions!! Gray opined!!!!

look at the situation with common sense…the way it is now, the US has absolutely no control over who or how many can become US citizens.

This is in contrast to the power of congress to regulate immigration.

@Mott-The-Hoople said
illegal alien birthright has never been heard by scotus

Thankyou Mott. A good observation and another reason to limit this conversation to common sense. OR, we would all be googling decisions all day. And really, what is wrong with presenting simple questions, such as my real brain-teaser, how can one have some legal designation that they are domiciled, when they have to hide when they see a govt car pull up? It Does Not Make Sense..Common Sense.

Conclusion: We have fun discussing problems of the day, as laymen. I am happy to play layman and discuss common sense. Not lawyering. If one of us speaks legal-eze, it just muddles the posts.
If some idiot lets chimapnzees out of a zoo cage, we can laugh and talk about who should have done what without delving into statutes!!!!

@AverageJoe1 said
Thankyou Mott. A good observation and another reason to limit this conversation to common sense. OR, we would all be googling decisions all day. And really, what is wrong with presenting simple questions, such as my real brain-teaser, how can one have some legal designation that they are domiciled, when they have to hide when they see a govt car pull up? It Does Not Ma ...[text shortened]... a zoo cage, we can laugh and talk about who should have done what without delving into statutes!!!!

but its fun watching someone pretend to be a lawyer get his ass handed to him 😂

@Mott-The-Hoople said
but its fun watching someone pretend to be a lawyer get his ass handed to him 😂

LMAO! A Federal Judge, appointed by the most conservative President in memory, just ruled the EO "blatantly unconstitutional" and you're deluded enough to think you're "winning" this argument?

@Sleepyguy said
I haven't read up on it yet, but does the case address whether a non-citizen in the US can be compelled to join the US army if drafted, or punished for treason? It seems logical the answer to both of those should be no.

In Carlisle v. US, non-citizens living in the US were charged with treason.https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S3-C2-1/ALDE_00001227/#:~:text=In%20Carlisle%20v.,treaty%20stipulation%20to%20the%20contrary

That case was decided in 1873.

@Sleepyguy said
I haven't read up on it yet, but does the case address whether a non-citizen in the US can be compelled to join the US army if drafted, or punished for treason? It seems logical the answer to both of those should be no.

Undocumented males between the ages of 18 and 25 are required to register for the draft.https://www.sss.gov/faq/

So the answers to your questions are "yes".

@no1marauder said
In Carlisle v. US, non-citizens living in the US were charged with treason.https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artIII-S3-C2-1/ALDE_00001227/#:~:text=In%20Carlisle%20v.,treaty%20stipulation%20to%20the%20contrary

That case was decided in 1873.

refers to “domiciled” residents

@no1marauder said
LMAO! A Federal Judge, appointed by the most conservative President in memory, just ruled the EO "blatantly unconstitutional" and you're deluded enough to think you're "winning" this argument?

a little early to be crowing…you forget RvW…those that dont learn from the past are doomed to repeat it 😉

@no1marauder said
Undocumented males between the ages of 18 and 25 are required to register for the draft.https://www.sss.gov/faq/

So the answers to your questions are "yes".

but no females are, sexism

@no1marauder said
Undocumented males between the ages of 18 and 25 are required to register for the draft.https://www.sss.gov/faq/

So the answers to your questions are "yes".

Thanks