1 edit
@sonhouse saidBut it does not say, as you type a few clicks back, ‘everyone born here’ You say in that post that the constitution says everyone born here, so now sue will use that misinformation in her missives and spread it all over the forum.
"The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, is a cornerstone of American civil rights, granting citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. (including formerly enslaved people) and guaranteeing all citizens "equal protection of the laws" and "due process," applying these federal protections to the states. It significantly expanded rights, establ ...[text shortened]... ional citizenship, limiting states from infringing on fundamental rights, and preventing states from
And THAT is the inherent problem with the forum.
It is why I am here.
@AverageJoe1 saidWhy don't you tell us morons what the 14th is all about.
But it does not say, as you type a few clicks back, ‘everyone born here’ You say in that post that the constitution says everyone born here, so now sue will use that misinformation in her missives and spread it all over the forum.
And THAT is the inherent problem with the forum.
It is why I am here.
2 edits
@sonhouse saidIt has all been been resolved by academics with more knowledge of the subject than you and I. how could average Joe add to all of that. We could get into how there were no illegal immigrants around when they wrote the constitution but, I digress. I think we have been over that.
Why don't you tell us morons what the 14th is all about.
Ask me another question, though. I am not into redundancy. No one can compete with your redundancy. And what has Jan 6 got to do with Epstein and tarriffs? Curious indeed.
Oh you left this one hanging. A chinee billionaire is having 112 babies born in the USA, using paid surrogates to deposit them here. Will they automatically be citizens, given your 14th amendment??.
So, 2 questions: Does the 14th provide that they are citizens?
Second question is a bit harder, and a different question……Marauder could not answer it.
Is it logical that the babies of the chinee, deposited here, should be given all rights of citizenship ?
That is 2 questions. The debate judges thus require 2 paragraphs.
2 edits
@AverageJoe1 saidYour question was answered. Repeatedly.
It has all been been resolved by academics with more knowledge of the subject than you and I. how could average Joe add to all of that. We could get into how there were no illegal immigrants around when they wrote the constitution but, I digress. I think we have been over that.
Ask me another question, though. I am not into redundancy. No one can compete with your re ...[text shortened]... n all rights of citizenship ?
That is 2 questions. The debate judges thus require 2 paragraphs.
Do you think babies are "deposited" by the stork? Or have these ones been born in the US?
You're the one ducking my basic question;
What's the problem with it? Businessman gets his kids, US businesses make money and we get more citizens. Sounds like a win all around.
@no1marauder saidOK, I am sorry. Laudits all around for someone who has answered those questions. I will still try to snare him. Let’s try this.
Your question was answered. Repeatedly.
Do you think babies are "deposited" by the stork? Or have these ones been born in the US?
You're the one ducking my basic question;
What's the problem with it? Businessman gets his kids, US businesses make money and we get more citizens. Sounds like a win all around.
The billionaire goes broke and disappear…surrogates to take their money and they also disappear. There are 112 babies all over the place in this country. What are you and Sunhouse going do with those babies. Hopefully their care would not be taken for about us, as I understand 12 of them have a lung diseases. After all, you brought them here. So they are your responsibility. You’re not going to call me on my ranch in Utah and asked me to handle it. Are you?
@AverageJoe1 saidThey weren't "brought here"; they were born here.
OK, I am sorry. Laudits all around for someone who has answered those questions. I will still try to snare him. Let’s try this.
The billionaire goes broke and disappear…surrogates to take their money and they also disappear. There are 112 babies all over the place in this country. What are you and Sunhouse going do with those babies. Hopefully their care would not be t ...[text shortened]... responsibility. You’re not going to call me on my ranch in Utah and asked me to handle it. Are you?
@no1marauder saidOh, it has not been made clear when the women were impregnated. If they were impregnated in China, then they brought them here. If they were impregnated here, then they weren’t brought here as they were already here inside the womb.
They weren't "brought here"; they were born here.
NOW you will tell us what that has to do with anything. The constitution says nothing about when a child is brought to a country, it only speaks as to when they are born in a country. This is one of your worst extrapolations to try to confuse a post. But you cant kid a kidder.
2 edits
@AverageJoe1 saidNo, the article I cited made clear that US surrogate companies were used because surrogacy parenting is illegal in China.https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/chinese-billionaire-has-over-100-surrogate-children-in-us-heres-what-he-wants-9816164
Oh, it has not been made clear when the women were impregnated. If they were impregnated in China, then they brought them here. If they were impregnated here, then they weren’t brought here as they were already here inside the womb.
NOW you will tell us what that has to do with anything. The constitution says nothing about when a child is brought to a country, it onl ...[text shortened]... ntry. This is one of your worst extrapolations to try to confuse a post. But you cant kid a kidder.
His spokesperson denies some of the WSJ story, however, and says only 12 of the kids were born in the US.https://www.newsweek.com/xu-bo-chinese-billionaire-100-us-born-babies-11217861
@Cliff-Mashburn said
My bad, it was later.
So...What?
Do you think in 1868 they knew there would be people swarming into America just to have kids as anchor babies?
I'll answer it for you.
NO.
No, they did not. They had no concept of the ease that people could travel thousands of miles in a few days or even hours.
Do you think in 1868 they knew there would be people swarming into America just to have kids as anchor babies?
All persons born here are citizens. That's whats written.
Things that previous generations didn't anticipate can be addressed with constitutional amendments. It seems like an immigration amendment might be in order.
We cannot leave it up to SCOTUS to readdress issues which were addressed in different ways in prior generations. SCOTUS loses all legitimacy if they start pretending that stuff that's written in the constitution was not written.
@no1marauder saidYou make such&such article clear, for what reason I know not.
No, the article I cited made clear that US surrogate companies were used because surrogacy parenting is illegal in China.
So anyway, as to the care for those babies for the years to come, I have seen Sunhouse sometimes suggest encampments. Would that be the way to go? Would they be 501(c) three or nonprofits, it would certainly have to be some new entity that we would have to devise? Or frankly that you and Sunhouse would have to devise.
@AverageJoe1 saidSo you're against people in the US having babies?
You make such&such article clear, for what reason I know not.
So anyway, as to the care for those babies for the years to come, I have seen Sunhouse sometimes suggest encampments. Would that be the way to go? Would they be 501(c) three or nonprofits, it would certainly have to be some new entity that we would have to devise? Or frankly that you and Sunhouse would have to devise.
Pretty myopic view IMO.
@no1marauder saidYou see your meaningless texts. “People in the U.S.” could be women in prison, which I am def against, or a single mother of 7 having more babies. I am against that too. And, I am against victims of incest having babies.
So you're against people in the US having babies?
Pretty myopic view IMO.
Meaningless texts. So, could you whistle it down a tad and rephrase. Be specific . Oh, I am not against a non-citizen having a baby here after invading over the Rio Grande, but certainly not to have the baby be a citizen. Ha! Mom is not even a citizen!!! Topsy turvey, ain’t it.
@AverageJoe1 saidSo you want the government to dictate who can or can't have a baby?
You see your meaningless texts. “People in the U.S.” could be women in prison, which I am def against, or a single mother of 7 having more babies. I am against that too. And, I am against victims of incest having babies.
Meaningless texts. So, could you whistle it down a tad and rephrase. Be specific . Oh, I am not against a non-citizen having a baby here after inv ...[text shortened]... inly not to have the baby be a citizen. Ha! Mom is not even a citizen!!! Topsy turvey, ain’t it.
Of course, the most logical thing to do is to give people willing to come here, work and raise a family a prompt path to citizenship esp. now with the country's shortage of workers and low birth rate . That would solve your non-problem, wouldn't it?