Posted on 08/19/2015 6:41:19 PM PDT by GilGil
My point exactly: NO American is engaging in "acts of civil insurrection" because Fed.gov owns us. We are a nation of cowards, who climbed in bed with the politicians who promised us pleasure and trinkets, but have led us to slavery.
Maybe we should go ahead and try a nonviolent legal recourse first like electing a hawk on border security like Cruz or Trump and passing laws or writing XO’s and denying the court the ability to review them.
Good luck with that! By the way, the 80's called, and they want their recycled policy prescriptions back.
Maybe we should try that before we go off all postal crazy. OK?
I'm so glad you learned the lessons the mainstream media taught you so well. Anyone who rebels against the government is just like the murderer of sacred government employees at the post office in Edmond, OK in 1986. Got it.
Also nice attitude. I am sure with attitudes like that you are the life of the party...
I don't go to parties. I can't stand Republicans or Democrats, and parties are full of both kinds of government stooges.
Shocked SHOCKED that you are not top line on the party invites!
Well, I support your hypothesis. We will see if it is reality. Hope you are right. Could be.
As well he should if for no other reason as to draw attention to the footnote stating he is the worst two term president in history.
Yeah, me, too, because I'm one of society's producers, and government stooges always need more money for their rapacious schemes.
I don’t think productivity has anything to do with it.
Yeah. It's probably that I quote the Founding Fathers too much.
Despite O’Reilly’s rant with Andrea Tanteros (re INS v. RIOS-PINEDA, (1985), No. 83-2032, Argued: March 20, 1985 Decided: May 13, 1985. [See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/471/444.html#sthash.8HG5TMl9.dpuf]), Ann Coulter’s got another take: http://humanevents.com/2010/08/04/justice-brennans-footnote-gave-us-anchor-babies/
I’m still trying to figure out what Rios-Pineda’s got to do with birthright citizenship, other than the off-hand “who is a U. S. citizen” referencing a child in one of the summaries.
And the more surly, the better!
I saw O’Reilly saying that the 14th amendment mandates birthright citizenship for illegal aliens’ babies. He shouted louder than Trump, and pointed with his finger, so he must be right.
“Birthright citizenship” of babies born by illegal aliens in the U.S. is as phony as (the wall of) “separation of church and state”.
I guess it all comes down to what the term jurisdiction means. I have a general sense of what the word means, but I’m not sure what the precise legal meaning of the word is. Good point about it meaning something more than just the geographic area of the United States, or else why mention it at all?
I think foreign embassies in our country are technically considered to be under the jurisdiction of their country of origin. There have been occasional instances in the past of diplomats committing crimes here and then claiming diplomatic immunity (i.e. our laws don’t apply to them). If it is argued that illegal aliens are not under our jurisdiction, does that mean they’re not subject to our law’s penalties? or does it mean they’re not subject to our law’s legal protections? or both?
Bill O on his Fox show tonight made fun of Mark.....even imitated his voice....very rude and very wrong.
Get way behind in paying your Income Taxes. Move to France. You will, in time, learn that the laws of France are not nearly as important as the jurisdiction the United States of America and the IRS have over you and your income.
I believe that same argument applies to citizens of Mexico crossing over into the U.S. and giving birth to a child. That child and the parents remain under the jurisdiction of the Mexican government.
O’Reilly wants a fight to create ratings. I’ve figured that guy out. Fox is in meltdown. They’ve destroyed their brand.
>> there is a thriving anchor baby tourism industry along the west coast and in some other areas. And temporary workers and foreign students also give birth in the US <<
Priorities matter. So we need to get our priorities straight.
How many anchor babies are born each year? Twenty thousand? Thirty thousand? Whatever they are, those numbers are drops in the bucket compared to the millions of Central Americans and others (including some jihadis) who are pouring over the southern border every year.
Let’s take care of the southern border first. Then we can worry about all the relatively minor issues like anchor babies.
>> Another opinion from the discouragement fraternity <<
In my book, false optimism is not a virtue. I prefer realism, no matter how painful.
Seems to me that you're advocating comprehensive immigration reform. No thanks. Let's build the fence first, without getting bogged down in interminable negotiations about other measures that may or may not hold up in the courts.
Then once the southern border is secure, we should consider the other measures one-by-one on their own merits and in terms of judicial and political realism.
Otherwise, it seems to me that your preference for comprehensive reform makes it more likely -- not less likely -- that illegal immigration across the southern border will continue unabated for the immediate future.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.