President Trump

[bbsam]

He did, with the best example, a US passport. They are under the jurisdiction of the law and can be held accountable for civil wrongs, same as you would be in Italy. Are you an Italian national? I think you should understand the definition of jurisdiction.
Are you Franco Harris?

Maybe you can explain it to me and the WSJ.

 

[bbsam]

But as citizens of another country they have allegiance to that country. If you don't believe that go into an area with a lot of Mexican immigrants and count the Mexican flags.

So what am I to think when I drive through Mississippi and see the Confederate flag flying on every corner?

 

[vantexan]

So what am I to think when I drive through Mississippi and see the Confederate flag flying on every corner?

Too late, they're already citizens! Might want to get out of town before dark though.

 

[bbsam]

Too late, they're already citizens! Might want to get out of town before dark though.

Are they? Citizens of what country? The US or a conquered foe of the US? Where are their allegiances?

 

[vantexan]

Are they? Citizens of what country? The US or a conquered foe of the US? Where are their allegiances?

Too late again! The 14th amendment actually applies to them too as interpreted by Justice Alfred E. Neumann.

 

[floridays]

Maybe you can explain it to me and the WSJ.

It was on the opinion page. Court rooms exist only for argument, best advice is to stay out of one as a defendant or respondent, If you make money there it can be very lucrative however. Decisions aren't rendered on an opinion page or internet forum. It's obvious I have my opinion as does the WSJ. Full disclosure, I still haven't read the piece, I do understand why it was on the opinion page however. I'll pull it up after I hit the post reply.

 

[vantexan]

It was on the opinion page. Court rooms exist only for argument, best advice is to stay out of one as a defendant or respondent, If you make money there it can be very lucrative however. Decisions aren't rendered on an opinion page or internet forum. It's obvious I have my opinion as does the WSJ. Full disclosure, I still haven't read the piece, I do understand why it was on the opinion page however. I'll pull it up after I hit the post reply.

Of course the RINOS don't want the flow of illegals stopped. Cheap labor. Republicans are almost their own worst enemy.

 

[bbsam]

Of course the RINOS don't want the flow of illegals stopped. Cheap labor. Republicans are almost their own worst enemy.

Lol. Do you know who is on the WSJ Editorial Board?

 

[Old Man Jingles]

But as citizens of another country they have allegiance to that country. If you don't believe that go into an area with a lot of Mexican immigrants and count the Mexican flags.

Maybe but that's irrelevant.

Still comes down to the intent of the writers of the amendment. If it's in the Congressional record what was intended then there's a legal basis for consideration.

Nothing you had in that first post was relevant nor would it appear in the Congressional record.

 

[vantexan]

Lol. Do you know who is on the WSJ Editorial Board?

A bunch of RINOS.

 

[vantexan]

Nothing you had in that first post was relevant nor would it appear in the Congressional record.

The writer of the amendment debated it with others in Congress and assured them it would only apply to freed slaves, not foreigners. It's in the Congressional record.

 

[vantexan]

The writer of the amendment debated it with others in Congress and assured them it would only apply to freed slaves, not foreigners. It's in the Congressional record.

P.S. One post has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

But as citizens of another country they have allegiance to that country. If you don't believe that go into an area with a lot of Mexican immigrants and count the Mexican flags.

The writer of the amendment debated it with others in Congress and assured them it would only apply to freed slaves, not foreigners. It's in the Congressional record.

Sounds reasonable but that still has nothing to do with your first post.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

P.S. One post has nothing to do with the other.

Didn't see your disclaimer prior to my response.

OK
We can agree on that.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

The writer of the amendment debated it with others in Congress and assured them it would only apply to freed slaves, not foreigners. It's in the Congressional record.

I agree.
My research has verified that.
That is why Congress should act.

 

[vantexan]

I agree.
My research has verified that.
That is why Congress should act.

And it's why Trump may be able to get away with an executive order.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

And it's why Trump may be able to get away with an executive order.

Highly unlikely.
9th circuit court will vote it down - 100% probability.

Trump's EO will start the process though.

 

[vantexan]

Highly unlikely.
9th circuit court will vote it down - 100% probability.

Trump's EO will start the process though.

Probably right.

 

[Old Man Jingles]

Probably right.

I hope so.

 

[floridays]

Maybe you can explain it to me and the WSJ.

Even using the link google provided didn't yield the complete opinion piece. Please send it to me, I'd like to read their reasoning.