Arizona pushing forward to stop anchor babies - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

justinsain · 06-12-2010, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fbomb

Since when does a child becomes responsible for his parents' crime?
Are we in biblical times or some shit?

A child isn't responsible for his parent's crime. However, when a parent commits a crime the consequences can affect their child. The parent gets locked up and the child most likely suffers in some way.

So when a parent does something illegal it is irresponsible of them as a parent.

By entering the US illegally the parents have acted irresponsibly and put the child in a precarious position. I would think that as a family the child would be obligated to go with the parents wherever that might be

Amputate Your Head · 06-12-2010, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justinsain

A child isn't responsible for his parent's crime. However, when a parent commits a crime the consequences can affect their child. The parent gets locked up and the child most likely suffers in some way.

So when a parent does something illegal it is irresponsible of them as a parent.

By entering the US illegally the parents have acted irresponsibly and put the child in a precarious position. I would think that as a family the child would be obligated to go with the parents wherever that might be

You wanna send an innocent kid off to god-knows-where with a couple of criminals? Isn't that a little irresponsible too? Hell, we take kids away from people here for much less than that.

justinsain · 06-12-2010, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

You wanna send an innocent kid off to god-knows-where with a couple of criminals? Isn't that a little irresponsible too? Hell, we take kids away from people here for much less than that.

I wouldn't blame the law makers for the child's plight. I'd blame the parents.

Fbomb - BANNED FOR LIFE · 06-12-2010, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Oh so I should have said, most or all 1st world Countries.. my bad,

Of course, most have restrictions on "America's" Issue:
"The primary reason for imposing this requirement is to limit or prevent people from travelling to a country with the specific intent of gaining citizenship for a child."

States that observe jus soli include:

Antigua and Barbuda[3]
Argentina[3]
Barbados[3]
Belize[3]
Bolivia[3]
Brazil[3]
Canada[3]
Chile[4]
Colombia[3]
Dominica[3]
Dominican Republic[3]
Ecuador[3]
El Salvador[3]
Fiji[5]
Grenada[3]
Guatemala[3]
Guyana[3]
Honduras[3]
Jamaica[3]
Lesotho[6]
Malaysia[3]
Mexico[3]
Nicaragua[3]
Pakistan[3]
Panama[3]
Paraguay[3]
Peru[3]
Saint Christopher and Nevis[3]
Saint Lucia[3]
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines[3]
Trinidad and Tobago[3]
United States[3]
Uruguay[3]
Venezuela[3]

So as I was saying... "Their is no logical reason why illegal or working immigrants babies should ever be granted citizenship."

Looks like most of the World agrees with me.

Now that have done that look up " Jus sanguinis " for me and think hard. I mean HARD.

Think of how many Mexicans can claim their rights thru that and why we have \that rule only to 3rd genertion and would rather have the birth rule.

http://canada.metropolis.net/events/...rs/weil2_e.htm

Idiot.

Amputate Your Head · 06-12-2010, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justinsain

I wouldn't blame the law makers for the child's plight. I'd blame the parents.

Doesn't matter. A kid gets a scraped knee these days in America and the CPS swoops in and confiscates your entire family until you prove your innocence. Now we're going to send a baby out to another country with two people that are criminals? Double standard much?

dyna mo · 06-12-2010, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fbomb

The only reason this went to court is because it was Chinese child and US passed the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 due to opium war.
Never did they question anybody's right to become US citizen in cases when a child was born on US soil.

yes, that was the reason for it going to court but i can see how the case can be applied as precedent here. but, again, i am not a lawyer and simply trying to understand this issue better.

anyhoo, my comment was re: this earlier post

Quote:

The Constitution doesn't expressly guarantee citizenship just because a child is born here, Fourteenth Amendment or otherwise. That's a common misconception. Nor has the Supreme Court ever stated so. About the only thing it has said is in fact citizenship is provided if the baby is born here, and the parents are subject to a foreign country and live here permanently (no migrant workers), and they are here on business. Pretty narrow definition.

to me the opinion means that ALL persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Fbomb - BANNED FOR LIFE · 06-12-2010, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

"There is a trend in some countries toward restricting lex soli by requiring that at least one of the child's parents be a national of the state in question at the child's birth, or a legal permanent resident of the territory of the state in question at the child's birth,[2] or that the child be a foundling found on the territory of the state in question (e.g.,see subparagraph (f) of 8 U.S.C. § 1401). The primary reason for imposing this requirement is to limit or prevent people from travelling to a country with the specific intent of gaining citizenship for a child."

Those evil ass Euro's not wanting illegals to get citizenship.... those bastards!

evil euros have rules that let illegals naturalize if they lived in the country for certain period. In Italy its 5 years I believe. here you can be illegal for 25, pay more taxes than thieving fucks like brassmonky, not comit any other crime and still be menace to society.

TheDoc · 06-12-2010, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fbomb

Now that have done that look up " Jus sanguinis " for me and think hard. I mean HARD.

Think of how many Mexicans can claim their rights thru that and why we have \that rule only to 3rd genertion and would rather have the birth rule.

http://canada.metropolis.net/events/...rs/weil2_e.htm

Idiot.

Yeah, I understand they can claim the right, yeah as I stated if you stay and become citizens, you are one. As I quoted, most Countries don't agree with illegals doing it.

Would you like to continue to make yourself look stupid?

TheDoc · 06-12-2010, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fbomb

evil euros have rules that let illegals naturalize if they lived in the country for certain period. In Italy its 5 years I believe. here you can be illegal for 25, pay more taxes than thieving fucks like brassmonky, not comit any other crime and still be menace to society.

So? This isn't Italy... I don't really care how Italy chooses to screw itself up. A menace is the anchor babies parents sucking the resources from America.

Amputate Your Head · 06-12-2010, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

So? This isn't Italy... I don't really care how Italy chooses to screw itself up.

And this isn't any of those other countries you paraded out for us.

TheDoc · 06-12-2010, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

And this isn't any of those other countries you paraded out for us.

I didn't parade them out...my focus would have been the Countries "not" on that list... the majority of the world Basically. As well, I don't care what other Countries nationalization rules are - they aren't ours - thus things happen differently.

justinsain · 06-12-2010, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

Doesn't matter. A kid gets a scraped knee these days in America and the CPS swoops in and confiscates your entire family until you prove your innocence. Now we're going to send a baby out to another country with two people that are criminals? Double standard much?

That's two different situations and not a double standard.

The CPS is about abuse and personal safety for the children.

The other is about citizenship and changing the location of the child that very well may have been born there in the first place.

At least you're referring to the illegals as criminals

Amputate Your Head · 06-12-2010, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

I didn't parade them out... you might want to check the topic of the conversion at that point.

So you're going to use this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Oh so I should have said, most or all 1st world Countries.. my bad,

Of course, most have restrictions on "America's" Issue:
"The primary reason for imposing this requirement is to limit or prevent people from travelling to a country with the specific intent of gaining citizenship for a child."

States that observe jus soli include:

Antigua and Barbuda[3]
Argentina[3]
Barbados[3]
Belize[3]
Bolivia[3]
Brazil[3]
Canada[3]
Chile[4]
Colombia[3]
Dominica[3]
Dominican Republic[3]
Ecuador[3]
El Salvador[3]
Fiji[5]
Grenada[3]
Guatemala[3]
Guyana[3]
Honduras[3]
Jamaica[3]
Lesotho[6]
Malaysia[3]
Mexico[3]
Nicaragua[3]
Pakistan[3]
Panama[3]
Paraguay[3]
Peru[3]
Saint Christopher and Nevis[3]
Saint Lucia[3]
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines[3]
Trinidad and Tobago[3]
United States[3]
Uruguay[3]
Venezuela[3]

So as I was saying... "Their is no logical reason why illegal or working immigrants babies should ever be granted citizenship."

Looks like most of the World agrees with me.

...but deny someone an Italy reference. Cool, just wanted to make sure we weren't unbalanced or anything.

Amputate Your Head · 06-12-2010, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justinsain

That's two different situations and not a double standard.

The CPS is about abuse and personal safety for the children.

The other is about citizenship and changing the location of the child that very well may have been born there in the first place.

At least you're referring to the illegals as criminals

Isn't there somewhere in the CPS Handbook that says they shouldn't allow a baby to leave with known criminals?

So are they criminals or not? If not, let them stay. If they are, the kid shouldn't go with them. Seems pretty simple to me.

TheDoc · 06-12-2010, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

So you're going to use this:

...but deny someone an Italy reference. Cool, just wanted to make sure we weren't unbalanced or anything.

Look above... I was quoting an article/info that showed he was correct, ie I did not: "paraded out for us"

dyna mo · 06-12-2010, 06:13 PM

Elk v. Wilkins

The question then was, whether an Indian, born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, is, merely by reason of his or her birth within the United States, and of his afterwards voluntarily separating him or herself from his or her tribe and taking up his or her residence among white citizens, a citizen of the United States, within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Under the constitution of the United States, Congress had and exercised the power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes, and the members thereof, whether within or without the boundaries of one of the states of the Union. The Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states; but they were alien nations, distinct political communities, with whom the United States might and habitually did deal, as they thought fit, either through treaties made by the president and senate, or through acts of congress in the ordinary forms of legislation. The members of those tribes owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes, and were not part of the people of the United States.

Although ?Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states,? ?they were alien nations, distinct political communities,? with whom the United States dealt with through treaties and acts of Congress. Thus, born a member of an Indian tribe, even on American soil, Elk could not meet the allegiance test of the jurisdictional phrase because he ?owed immediate allegiance to? his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, and not to the United States. The Court held Elk was not ?subject to the jurisdiction? of the United States at birth. ?The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.?

The exclusion of native Americans from citizenship was eventually eliminated by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

justinsain · 06-12-2010, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amputate Your Head

Isn't there somewhere in the CPS Handbook that says they shouldn't allow a baby to leave with known criminals?

So are they criminals or not? If not, let them stay. If they are, the kid shouldn't go with them. Seems pretty simple to me.

So you're saying any parent that has committed a crime should have their children taken away

VGeorgie · 06-12-2010, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

carrying on business in the United States,

That's the point. Illegals can't carry on a business. "Business" assumes a legal framework of conduct - just like dealing crack isn't business, and it doesn't enjoy the protections of business (unless Guido is your protector, and then we're talking about something completely different!). While an illegal alien may be here for work, it's not business, as the work is breaking the law.

That Supreme Court ruling is pretty much de facto standard in discussing citizenship. But the court has not yet gone further than this. If the Arizona statute becomes law, there's no doubt it'll be taken to the Supreme Court, and they will be required to clarify this and a few other rulings.

sortie · 06-12-2010, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justinsain

A child isn't responsible for his parent's crime. However, when a parent commits a crime the consequences can affect their child. The parent gets locked up and the child most likely suffers in some way.

So when a parent does something illegal it is irresponsible of them as a parent.

By entering the US illegally the parents have acted irresponsibly and put the child in a precarious position. I would think that as a family the child would be obligated to go with the parents wherever that might be

If the parents commit a crime and go to jail in America then the child becomes
a "ward of the state".

So what you just said is basically garbage.

Amputate Your Head · 06-12-2010, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by justinsain

So you're saying any parent that has committed a crime should have their children taken away

Isn't that the way it works? Did they change something while I was asleep?

epitome · 06-12-2010, 08:16 PM

Bunch of hypocrites.

My family came 11 generations ago. If they had that law in place my family would be deported.

People need to remember where they come from...

Sly · 06-12-2010, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

Bunch of hypocrites.

My family came 11 generations ago. If they had that law in place my family would be deported.

People need to remember where they come from...

11 generations ago there was slavery and definitely not openly gays.

jackknoff · 06-12-2010, 08:36 PM

This thread make my head hurt

dyna mo · 06-12-2010, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome

Bunch of hypocrites.

My family came 11 generations ago. If they had that law in place my family would be deported.

People need to remember where they come from...

you were here before columbus?

Vendzilla · 06-13-2010, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

you were here before columbus?

My family was

dyna mo · 06-13-2010, 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

My family was

what are you a conservative aborigine?

but seriously, it seems there's an disproportionate amount of gfyers that have 300+ year old family trees that are strictly american.

dyna mo · 06-13-2010, 09:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VGeorgie

That's the point. Illegals can't carry on a business. "Business" assumes a legal framework of conduct - just like dealing crack isn't business, and it doesn't enjoy the protections of business (unless Guido is your protector, and then we're talking about something completely different!). While an illegal alien may be here for work, it's not business, as the work is breaking the law.

That Supreme Court ruling is pretty much de facto standard in discussing citizenship. But the court has not yet gone further than this. If the Arizona statute becomes law, there's no doubt it'll be taken to the Supreme Court, and they will be required to clarify this and a few other rulings.

thx for the clarification. it's an interesting topic to me!

Vendzilla · 06-13-2010, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

what are you a conservative aborigine?

but seriously, it seems there's an disproportionate amount of gfyers that have 300+ year old family trees that are strictly american.

My Great Grandmother was a Cherokee, she's part of the 5 tribes, She lived a long life . That's on my dads side, my moms side , same thing, different tribe. Makes me 1/4 Native American. Good enough for benefits, but I don't want them.

sortie · 06-13-2010, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

what are you a conservative aborigine?

but seriously, it seems there's an disproportionate amount of gfyers that have 300+ year old family trees that are strictly american.

Well, considering the fact that slavery lasted 300 years until it "actually" ended
around 1865, it all makes sense to me.

Somebody else was here besides the slaves ya know.

escorpio · 06-13-2010, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

My Great Grandmother was a Cherokee, she's part of the 5 tribes, She lived a long life . That's on my dads side, my moms side , same thing, different tribe. Makes me 1/4 Native American. Good enough for benefits, but I don't want them.

disregard

dyna mo · 06-13-2010, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

My Great Grandmother was a Cherokee, she's part of the 5 tribes, She lived a long life . That's on my dads side, my moms side , same thing, different tribe. Makes me 1/4 Native American. Good enough for benefits, but I don't want them.

i see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sortie

Well, considering the fact that slavery lasted 300 years until it "actually" ended
around 1865, it all makes sense to me.

Somebody else was here besides the slaves ya know.

i don't see.

Vendzilla · 06-13-2010, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sortie

Well, considering the fact that slavery lasted 300 years until it "actually" ended
around 1865, it all makes sense to me.

Somebody else was here besides the slaves ya know.

Slavery has been around for a lot more time than that, you do know how the pyramids were built right?

Fbomb - BANNED FOR LIFE · 06-13-2010, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

Yeah, I understand they can claim the right, yeah as I stated if you stay and become citizens, you are one. As I quoted, most Countries don't agree with illegals doing it.

Would you like to continue to make yourself look stupid?

Dumb ass, its not about being illegal, its about when you become legal.
I don’t want to waste my time on you. Even if I tried, you wouldn’t understand.

Idiot.

SykkBoy · 06-13-2010, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

My Great Grandmother was a Cherokee, she's part of the 5 tribes, She lived a long life . That's on my dads side, my moms side , same thing, different tribe. Makes me 1/4 Native American. Good enough for benefits, but I don't want them.

Then don't you want all these white conquering motherfuckers shipped back to where they came from?

So, you'll take the benefits of being an American, but not those of being Indian? Why? Are you going to reject your social security benefits? Your retirement benefits?

Fbomb - BANNED FOR LIFE · 06-13-2010, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDoc

So? This isn't Italy... I don't really care how Italy chooses to screw itself up. A menace is the anchor babies parents sucking the resources from America.

But WE ARE jus soli country, shit stain. WE are not ITALY.
So you better start carrying and respecting it, moron.

sortie · 06-13-2010, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Slavery has been around for a lot more time than that, you do know how the pyramids were built right?

We were talking about America(USA), not Egypt.

WTF???

Are you stupid or something?

Fbomb - BANNED FOR LIFE · 06-13-2010, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

My Great Grandmother was a Cherokee, she's part of the 5 tribes, She lived a long life . That's on my dads side, my moms side , same thing, different tribe. Makes me 1/4 Native American. Good enough for benefits, but I don't want them.

What it makes you is 3/4 th deportable, not 1/4 native.

sortie · 06-13-2010, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i don't see.

African slaves were brought to Spanish Florida as early as the 1560s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery..._United_States

1560 + 300 = 1860........it is now 2010.

dyna mo · 06-13-2010, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sortie

African slaves were brought to Spanish Florida as early as the 1560s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery..._United_States

1560 + 300 = 1860........it is now 2010.

i still don't see what that has to do with the part of my post you highlighted/made the comment on.

Vendzilla · 06-13-2010, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SykkBoy2

Then don't you want all these white conquering motherfuckers shipped back to where they came from?

So, you'll take the benefits of being an American, but not those of being Indian? Why? Are you going to reject your social security benefits? Your retirement benefits?

I have SSN benefits and retirement benefits without claiming it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sortie

We were talking about America(USA), not Egypt.

WTF???

Are you stupid or something?

You didn't state America, so that makes you incorrect on two counts.
So kindly FUCK OFF!
Slavery has been around since the dawn of time, You just see when blacks were slaves, narrow minded missing the fact that there were other slaves before blacks got to America. Maybe you would know this if you had ever cracked open a book! Here's a page of some history for you. http://www.revisionisthistory.org/forgottenslaves.html
You keep playing the race card in your posts, like telling me that people are getting on Obama because he's black? NO, it's because he's a shitty president. But you didn't come back and debate the facts, just gave me some fucking excuse that people hated the black man.
Just like I remember when Charlton Heston Died, people bashed him on this board because all they knew was he was head of the NRA for a while, he was standing up for peoples rights, just like he did when he marched with Martin Luther King!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fbomb

What it makes you is 3/4 th deportable, not 1/4 native.

Nope, just makes me part of the mix, now get off of my land pale face, LMAO

sortie · 06-13-2010, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

i still don't see what that has to do with the part of my post you highlighted/made the comment on.

You insinuated that a 300 year old US family tree was too old for a White American to
claim.

I simply stated that white people had to be here that length of time based on
the history of slavery.

I don't really understand what the problem is.

Do you have a difficult time counting numbers or did you just have a
"redneck reaction" whereby once you heard the word "slavery" you went stupid on a nigga?

Fbomb - BANNED FOR LIFE · 06-13-2010, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Nope, just makes me part of the mix, now get off of my land pale face, LMAO

we are ALL part of the mix.
seriously.

sortie · 06-13-2010, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

I have SSN benefits and retirement benefits without claiming it.

You didn't state America, so that makes you incorrect on two counts.
So kindly FUCK OFF!
Slavery has been around since the dawn of time, You just see when blacks were slaves, narrow minded missing the fact that there were other slaves before blacks got to America. Maybe you would know this if you had ever cracked open a book! Here's a page of some history for you. http://www.revisionisthistory.org/forgottenslaves.html
You keep playing the race card in your posts, like telling me that people are getting on Obama because he's black? NO, it's because he's a shitty president. But you didn't come back and debate the facts, just gave me some fucking excuse that people hated the black man.
Just like I remember when Charlton Heston Died, people bashed him on this board because all they knew was he was head of the NRA for a while, he was standing up for peoples rights, just like he did when he marched with Martin Luther King!

Nope, just makes me part of the mix, now get off of my land pale face, LMAO

I'm not going to read that stupid shit.

I was defending your claim that you could have 11 generations of US born relatives.

Evidently is was 11 generations of deformed cerebellums.

Vendzilla · 06-13-2010, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sortie

I'm not going to read that stupid shit.

I was defending your claim that you could have 11 generations of US born relatives.

Evidently is was 11 generations of deformed cerebellums.

Sorry,I mistakenly thought you could read.

Too bad you can't debate the facts, instead of just blowing it off with insults, shows your true value in the world

Vendzilla · 06-13-2010, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fbomb

we are ALL part of the mix.
seriously.

Not everyone, those that choose not to learn the language, not to become part of the mix or the melting pot are just moving to America, they're not becoming American.

Linguist · 06-13-2010, 12:36 PM

Let's just put it this way: I'm an immigrant. My family is immigrant.

We came to Canada, legally. After doing a shitload of fucking paperwork, going through interviews, financials, etc.

That's what the law is. In the states, law is similar. You get a greencard or you stay the fuck out.

You're saying - criminals that jump border get more rights than law abiding Mexicans who don't dare to cross the border illegally.

Why don't we just open the borders to Mexico then? It'll be a humanitarian thing to do. We're all part of the mix anyway.

brassmonkey · 06-13-2010, 12:43 PM

damn i missed this. but yeah im hoping this passes i wish they could go back and get the ones that slipped through.

Fbomb - BANNED FOR LIFE · 06-13-2010, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

Not everyone, those that choose not to learn the language, not to become part of the mix or the melting pot are just moving to America, they're not becoming American.

So you're telling me that half of Boston is not american because they like to keep their Irish heritage and shit.
Oh wait, we weren’t talking about them. It’s the Mexicans that pissed in your cheerios.

Fbomb - BANNED FOR LIFE · 06-13-2010, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brassmonkey

damn i missed this. but yeah im hoping this passes i wish they could go back and get the ones that slipped through.

Start paying taxes first.

Fbomb - BANNED FOR LIFE · 06-13-2010, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linguist

Let's just put it this way: I'm an immigrant. My family is immigrant.

We came to Canada, legally. After doing a shitload of fucking paperwork, going through interviews, financials, etc.

That's what the law is. In the states, law is similar. You get a greencard or you stay the fuck out.

You're saying - criminals that jump border get more rights than law abiding Mexicans who don't dare to cross the border illegally.

Why don't we just open the borders to Mexico then? It'll be a humanitarian thing to do. We're all part of the mix anyway.

Do all of us a favor and stay in Canada. We have enough morons in this country.
STAY IN MOTHERFUCKING CANADA.

06-13-2010, 12:36 PM	#96
Linguist Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Toronto, ON Posts: 1,706	Let's just put it this way: I'm an immigrant. My family is immigrant. We came to Canada, legally. After doing a shitload of fucking paperwork, going through interviews, financials, etc. That's what the law is. In the states, law is similar. You get a greencard or you stay the fuck out. You're saying - criminals that jump border get more rights than law abiding Mexicans who don't dare to cross the border illegally. Why don't we just open the borders to Mexico then? It'll be a humanitarian thing to do. We're all part of the mix anyway. __________________ 315-310 Last edited by Linguist; 06-13-2010 at 12:38 PM..

06-13-2010, 12:43 PM	#97
brassmonkey Pay It Forward Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Yo Mama House Posts: 77,261	damn i missed this. but yeah im hoping this passes i wish they could go back and get the ones that slipped through. __________________ TRUMP 2025 KEKAW!!! - The Laken Riley Act Is Law! DACA ENDED - SUPPORT AZ HCR 2060 52R - email: brassballz-at-techie.com

06-12-2010, 06:13 PM	#66
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 66,000	Elk v. Wilkins The question then was, whether an Indian, born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States, is, merely by reason of his or her birth within the United States, and of his afterwards voluntarily separating him or herself from his or her tribe and taking up his or her residence among white citizens, a citizen of the United States, within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Under the constitution of the United States, Congress had and exercised the power to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes, and the members thereof, whether within or without the boundaries of one of the states of the Union. The Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states; but they were alien nations, distinct political communities, with whom the United States might and habitually did deal, as they thought fit, either through treaties made by the president and senate, or through acts of congress in the ordinary forms of legislation. The members of those tribes owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes, and were not part of the people of the United States. Although ?Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states,? ?they were alien nations, distinct political communities,? with whom the United States dealt with through treaties and acts of Congress. Thus, born a member of an Indian tribe, even on American soil, Elk could not meet the allegiance test of the jurisdictional phrase because he ?owed immediate allegiance to? his tribe, a vassal or quasi-nation, and not to the United States. The Court held Elk was not ?subject to the jurisdiction? of the United States at birth. ?The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.? The exclusion of native Americans from citizenship was eventually eliminated by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924.

06-12-2010, 08:16 PM	#71
epitome So Fucking Lame Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: St. Petersburg, FL Posts: 12,156	Bunch of hypocrites. My family came 11 generations ago. If they had that law in place my family would be deported. People need to remember where they come from...

06-12-2010, 08:36 PM	#73
jackknoff Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2010 Posts: 545	This thread make my head hurt