Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
It wasn't me that came up with the "lefty shill site", which I assumed was typical of conservative thinking. Bad assumption. I've been told this was meant to make former slaves citizens, which makes sense seeing as it was ratified in 1868. But just wondering ... the USA was rapidly expanding westward. Was that intended to make "natives" citizens as well?

Anyway, I'm pretty agnostic on the topic myself bc I haven't thought very much abiut it, but I'd certainly like "anchor babies" to be illegal.

*****

From my work in a regulatory agency, I know that in order to properly interpret a regulation (law, amendment) you sometimes have to dig into rule development notes (discusions, letters, other records etc) and on occasion nothing will do but to talk to the original author(s). Would be nice if we could buttonhole them in this case.

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger

AMERICANS SUPPORT AMERICA

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

there are those walking among us who are not required to obey U.S. laws.

---

Diplomatic immunity comes to mind. It's not enuf to be a citizen of another country visiting or living in the USA to be exempt from our laws, but diplomatic immunity will do. IDK if (some? all?) tribal reservations - which are their own nations - are subject to USA law.

---

We know we live in a 2-tiered justice system. I just found it cute that they don't make any attempt to hide it anymore.

Quote:

---

Now, IDK if "diplomatic immunity" was a "thing" back then when that was written, so I don't know if that's what is being referred to.

---

Well, right.... right? Who knows? Nobody knows. How many are there? How did they get this status? Why do they have this status? Are they citizens? If not, what is their business here and how long will they be staying? Are there any living on my block?

All questions that you'll never have answers to because nobody with more than 5,000 twitter followers is ever going to ask and Elon Musk isn't going to re-tweet it. It should go without saying that the media will never ask this question.

Quote:

---

If your quote is correct, then everyone born in the USA is automatically a citizen (except children of foreign diplomats who apparently inherit their parents' citizenship) and "anchor babies" are legal.

---

Oh... Trust me. I have no opinions on how true or untrue this quote is. It's an extremely watered down interpretation for normies of what might be thousands of pages of legalese.

Even if the agency didn't have a bias either way and was planted firmly in the realm of reality, I think that's a really tall order.

I wouldn't go making any assumptions based off of that, and even if they state that specifically somewhere in the document, I'd want to see the actual proof or at least look into other people's interpretation of it.

Even if there is a string of legal cases that set a precedent for them to come up with this assessment, and even if their assessment was 100% correct as the laws stand today, these are all very low-level to mid-level court cases that have yet to make it up the chain. Things may look very different on this issue in 4 years with the speed at which things are playing out right now.

--------------------------------------------------

"I don't find this stuff amusing anymore." ~Paul Simon

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

I didn't even notice.

*****

Looked up Levin. I hope SCOTUS thinks as he does.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

I didn't even notice.

*****

Looked up Levin. I hope SCOTUS thinks as he does.

---

---

What's this, comrade this is my thread. You said nobody ever posts in them. And you're chatting with Jack. Oh **** and there's JEWELSTAITEFAN. What is he doing in one of my threads? Jerk.

T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

I didn't even notice.

*****

Looked up Levin. I hope SCOTUS thinks as he does.

---

---

What's this, comrade this is my thread. You said nobody ever posts in them. And you're chatting with Jack. Oh **** and there's JEWELSTAITEFAN. What is he doing in one of my threads? Jerk.

T

---

We just come here to see what dumb shit you post and to laugh at you and your dead party.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
It wasn't me that came up with the "lefty shill site", which I assumed was typical of conservative thinking. Bad assumption. I've been told this was meant to make former slaves citizens, which makes sense seeing as it was ratified in 1868. But just wondering ... the USA was rapidly expanding westward. Was that intended to make "natives" citizens as well?

Anyway, I'm pretty agnostic on the topic myself bc I haven't thought very much abiut it, but I'd certainly like "anchor babies" to be illegal.

*****

From my work in a regulatory agency, I know that in order to properly interpret a regulation (law, amendment) you sometimes have to dig into rule development notes (discusions, letters, other records etc) and on occasion nothing will do but to talk to the original author(s). Would be nice if we could buttonhole them in this case.

-----------
"It may be dangerous to be America's enemy, but to be America's friend is fatal."- Henry Kissinger

AMERICANS SUPPORT AMERICA

---

Their stated Mission: ... immigrant integration.

Good clue right there.



Those 3 Amendments were specifiuc to the purpose of Emancipated slaves.

Mark always goes into the intents and writings of the authors, when possible. You should enjoy his explanation.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:
T

Tim Miller UNLOADS on Biden’s Inner Circle

---