0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
You can't have it both ways Bigun.You can't argue that the US has the right to round up and deport illegal aliens in the country then turn around and claim that we don't have sovereign jurisdiction over non-diplomats that are in the country.If illegal aliens are not subject to our jurisdiction, they are not bound by our laws an in fact exist outside our laws, so they can't be here illegally.
"The amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States."Wow...Thanks for proving my point Bigun.
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. ]This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. [/i][/u]It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]
Give it up Bigun. Agree to disagree. Luis will never concede the point. Besides, does it really matter if he does or does not accept our interpretation?I suggest, no. It doesn't matter.
The actual question is what does your interpretation matter when the government and the Courts disagree with it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?t=66&v=5ab7XPocA0Y
Three observations.First, it's a YouTube video posted by someone named "Duke," without attribution. We have no way of knowing the agenda of the videographer, or the question that was asked that prompted Cruz's response.Second, this was taped during an election campaign. And we all know that politicians (and Cruz is a politician, even if he is on our side) will say anything in order to get elected. And, let's acknowledge that senatorial office is just about the cushiest job in America.Third, even Ted Cruz can be wrong.
While "anchor babies" born to undocumented mothers are a familiar concern in conservative circles, Trump's solution would place him to the right of GOP rival Ted Cruz, one of the U.S. Senate's most outspoken critics of President Barack Obama's immigration policies.As a Texas U.S. Senate candidate in 2011, Cruz stressed that birthright citizenship, however problematic, is enshrined in the Constitution. "I think it's a mistake for conservatives to be focusing on trying to fight what the Constitution says on birthright citizenship," he said. "I think we are far better off focusing on securing the border. Because birthright citizenship wouldn't be an issue if we didn't have people coming in illegally."
Ladies and gentlemen.aligncare wants you to ignore your lying eyes.
Trying a political counterpoint with Luis is like trying to hold onto a fistful of Jell-O.
Cruz understands that birthright citizenship is enshrined in the Constitution, and opposes it as a public matter of policy.The guy is actually growing on me.
Yikes....now Sinkspur will check in and try to kick your a$$, too!
I'm taking all comers.P.S. He IS Cuban you know.
